A three-judge appellate panel affirmed the trial court's decision dismissing the civil case brought by Michael D. Hurd, who alleged his civil rights were violated and that he was owed damages following the initial release. The judges found the reincarceration did not violate Hurd's due process rights even though he had completed his required post-release probation.
"Even if one of those legal theories were valid, a judgment in Hurd's favor would necessarily imply the invalidity of his confinement," U.S. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao wrote for the panel in an opinion. "Hurd maintains that he is not challenging his original conviction or sentence, only his reincarceration. But this is a distinction without a difference. The reincarceration was for the purpose of serving his original, lawful sentence."
In 2005, Hurd pled guilty to one felony and four misdemeanor firearms charges, as well as drug charges, and was sentenced to 42 months of incarceration and three years of probation. He was expected to spend 15 months in federal prison for his felony charge, and the remaining 27 months in the D.C. jail.
The federal prison was supposed to transfer Hurd at the end of his 15-month felony sentence, but the federal prison mistakenly released Hurd, allowing him to begin his three years of probation instead of serving his remaining sentence in the D.C. jail.
Hurd completed his probation in July 2010, and less than a year later, he pled guilty to a misdemeanor marijuana charge. Hurd was required to spend nine days in the D.C. jail for the charge, though while preparing to leave, a D.C. corrections officer noticed he had not served the additional 27 months for his misdemeanor offenses.
The D.C. jail continued to detain Hurd for the remainder of his sentence, and he was not provided a hearing to challenge whether the reincarceration was legal. Hurd filed for a habeas writ with the D.C. municipal courts, though the panel denied his bid, and he was released from prison before he could finish his appeal, according to the opinion.
He filed a lawsuit against the D.C. government in federal court, asserting that his reincarceration violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Hurd argued that because he was denied a hearing on his reincarceration, he was denied a chance to contest the remaining sentence.
After Hurd filed several appeals, the federal district court issued a summary judgment against Hurd, finding that even if he was entitled to a hearing, his demand for damages was barred by previous U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Heck v. Humprey, a case decided in 1994.
The appellate panel found that while this is the first time an accidental release and reincarceration case has come before the circuit court, the Supreme Court has addressed the issue, finding that reincarceration does not violate the Fifth Amendment.
Judge Rao wrote that while the incarceration may have "disadvantaged" Hurd by requiring him to finish the remainder of his sentence, the constitution allows leeway for governments and their employees, and that the Fifth Amendment does not prevent reincarceration to finish a sentence.
"The employee acted diligently to correct an error in the enforcement of an unserved sentence," Judge Rao said of the D.C. corrections officer. "Hurd's reincarceration in these circumstances does not come close to a violation of substantive due process."
A spokesperson for the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia declined to comment.
A representative for Hurd did not respond to requests for comment.
U.S. Circuit Judges Florence Y. Pan, Neomi Rao and Douglas H. Ginsburg sat on the panel.
Hurd is represented by Douglas Friend Gansler of Cadwalader Wickersham & Taft LLP and by John B. Howard Jr.
The city is represented by Caroline S. Van Zile, Sean Frazzette, Carl James Schifferle and Ashwin P. Phatak of the Office of the Attorney General for the District of Columbia.
The case is Hurd v. D.C., case number 23-7176, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
--Editing by Covey Son.
Update: This story was updated with comment from the government.
For a reprint of this article, please contact reprints@law360.com.
