On August 30, 2010, a Tennessee resident who had been detained several months brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office, the Rutherford County Sheriff, and the Sheriff's Chief Deputy. The plaintiff claimed he was ...
read more >
On August 30, 2010, a Tennessee resident who had been detained several months brought a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the Rutherford County Sheriff's Office, the Rutherford County Sheriff, and the Sheriff's Chief Deputy. The plaintiff claimed he was unlawfully detained pursuant to an ICE detainer for four months after he was otherwise eligible for release. He alleged that his prolonged detention violated his constitutional rights (4th, 5th, 8th and 14th Amendments) as well as state law against negligence, false imprisonment, and failure to train. The plaintiff also brought a 1983 claim alleging that the Sheriff's Office had failed to adequately train its employees.
The plaintiff, represented by private counsel, sought to represent a class that included prisoners of Rutherford County Jail who were detained unlawfully pursuant to detainers. Plaintiff sought declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, and attorneys' fees.
Plaintiff's claims arose out of his detention following his arrest for driving on a suspended license. He was sentenced to five days in jail. ICE then issued an immigration detainer, which would allow the Sheriff to hold the plaintiff for 48 additional hours. The plaintiff, however, was held for an additional four months.
On March 2, 2011, the District Court (Judge William J. Hayes, Jr.) dismissed plaintiff's federal and state law claims against the sheriff and his chief deputy and denied class certification. Ramos-Macario v. Jones, No. 3:10-00813, 2011 WL 831678 (M.D. Tenn. Mar. 2, 2011). The Court also denied defendants' motions to dismiss or in the alternative, for summary judgment as to the federal claims against Rutherford County and allowed the false imprisonment claim to go forward against the county.
In March 2012, the court set a status conference for the parties to present their provisional settlement agreement. The docket does not reflect that the conference ever took place, but on April 20, 2012, the parties moved to voluntarily dismiss the suit with prejudice. It is therefore unclear whether the parties reached a settlement agreement.Jennifer Bronson - 11/10/2013