New Third Circuit Decision – Eighth Amendment Overdetention 

Bold Third Circuit Ruling on Eighth Amendment Overdetention 

On March 14, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit decided Herrera v. Agents of Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, which held that a plaintiff’s overdetention claim (detention past maximum release date) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was not barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994), because Heck’s “favorable termination requirement does not apply to an overdetention claim that accepts the validity of the maximum sentence imposed but alleges that deliberate indifference delayed the execution of an inmate’s release beyond that sentence.” The Court vacated the dismissal of Herrera’s complaint and remanded for further proceedings. This decision significantly impacts cases involving Eighth Amendment overdetention and wrongful incarceration claims. 

Facts and Procedural History of the Eighth Amendment Overdetention Case 

Herrera, a pro se litigant, alleged that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (the “Board”) and the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (“DOC”) detained him for approximately seven months beyond his maximum prison term, violating his Eighth Amendment rights. The procedural history of the case traces back to 2012, when Herrera was arrested and later sentenced in 2013 to a 36-to-72-month prison term. After being released on parole in 2014, he violated parole and was subsequently resentenced in 2017 to a reduced term of 30 to 66 months. This resentencing included credit for time served. However, due to a clerical error in calculating his release date, his imprisonment was improperly extended. 

Herrera contended that he should have been released in March 2019 but was not freed until October 2019, despite repeated inquiries to the Board and DOC. His complaint centered on Eighth Amendment overdetention, arguing that his prolonged incarceration amounted to cruel and unusual punishment. 

Lower Court’s Decision on the Eighth Amendment Overdetention Claim 

The District Court dismissed Herrera’s complaint under Heck v. Humphrey, concluding that his claim amounted to a challenge to the duration of his sentence and therefore could not proceed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court held that because Herrera’s claim implied the invalidity of his sentence, he was required to first demonstrate a “favorable termination” of his underlying conviction or sentence before seeking relief under § 1983. It further ruled that any amendment would be futile and denied reconsideration. 

Third Circuit’s Holding on Eighth Amendment Overdetention and Heck Bar 

On appeal, the Third Circuit disagreed with the District Court’s application of Heck to Herrera’s claim. The Court explained that Heck bars § 1983 claims only when success on the claim would necessarily imply the invalidity of a conviction or sentence. Relying on precedent from other Circuits, the Court reasoned that Heck does not apply to Eighth Amendment overdetention claims when the plaintiff is not challenging the validity of the underlying conviction or sentence but rather an unlawful extension of incarceration due to ministerial errors. The Court specifically cited cases from the Fifth, Seventh, and Eleventh Circuits, which have held that Heck does not bar overdetention claims where prisoners allege they were detained beyond their lawful release date due to administrative mistakes. 

Overdetention as an Eighth Amendment Violation Under § 1983 

The Third Circuit further found that Herrera plausibly stated an Eighth Amendment overdetention claim. Under Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1989), an overdetention claim requires a showing that: 

1. Officials knew of the plaintiff’s possible overdetention and the risk of continued unlawful punishment. 
2. They failed to act or responded ineffectively, demonstrating deliberate indifference. 
3. This deliberate indifference caused the plaintiff’s overdetention. 

The Court determined that Herrera satisfied these elements by alleging that he repeatedly informed officials of the error in his release date, but they failed to correct it, resulting in his continued imprisonment for an additional seven months. 

Statute of Limitations Concerns in Eighth Amendment Overdetention Claims 

Despite ruling in Herrera’s favor on the Heck issue, the Court noted that his claims might be time-barred under Pennsylvania’s two-year statute of limitations for 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims. Herrera filed his complaint in September 2022, more than two years after his October 2019 release. However, the Court recognized that certain circumstances—such as administrative exhaustion, lack of access to legal materials, and mental illness—might warrant statutory or equitable tolling. The case was remanded to allow Herrera to amend his complaint to provide further facts supporting tolling arguments. 

Key Takeaways from the Third Circuit’s Eighth Amendment Overdetention Ruling 

The Third Circuit’s ruling clarifies that Heck does not categorically bar 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Eighth Amendment overdetention claims when the plaintiff is not contesting the validity of the original sentence but rather a failure to timely execute the release. This decision reinforces the principle that overdetention, if proven, constitutes a potential violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The case will proceed in the District Court, where Herrera will have the opportunity to amend his complaint to address potential statute of limitations issues. 

Criminal law is complicated and constantly changing. If you are facing criminal charges, you should immediately contact our team of experienced former prosecutors to schedule a free case review with one of our expert criminal defense attorneys. A complete understanding of criminal law by your attorney is crucial to your defense. Your rights and freedoms are in jeopardy, and you owe it to yourself to act. We are available to provide immediate assistance and further counsel on your case at 862-315-7929. 

No aspect of this attorney advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court of New Jersey.