DOJ Leaves Louisiana Over-Detention Suit on Life Support, Two Others Granted Class-Action Status
by Chuck Sharman
A prison case filed in Louisiana by the federal Department of Justice (DOJ) has languished since new leadership was appointed in January 2025 by Pres. Donald J. Trump (R). Filed by the DOJ just before Trump took office, the case sought to hold the state accountable for the horrific practice of chronically over-detaining state prisoners months past their release dates.
With the DOJ behind it, the case might have broken a log-jam over the issue at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Nearly half of the judges on the circuit have indicated that any prisoner’s claim for being detained past his release date should be barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994); because the claim challenges the “fact or duration” of the prisoner’s confinement, they say that his proper relief lies in habeas corpus. The other half of the circuit disagrees, noting that an over-detention claim doesn’t challenge the sentence itself but the state’s failure to timely release a prisoner who has completed it.
This has real-world consequences because the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC) cannot properly track the sentences of its prisoners. As proof, underlying the DOJ’s suit, was an investigation that found over a quarter of all state prisoners released between January and April 2022 were over-detained an average of 29 days, with many held 90 days or more too long. Forcing a prisoner to seek his timely release with a habeas petition absolves the state of any responsibility to do better. It also prevents recovery of damages.
The DOJ filed its suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana in December 2024, accusing the state and DPSC of “a pattern or practice of holding individuals far past their legal release date, in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” On January 28, 2025, the parties filed a consent motion to continue deadlines for establishing a case schedule. That was granted the next day. Since then, the parties have continued to file consent motions every 90 days to hold the case in abeyance. See: United States v. Louisiana, USDC (M.D. La.), Case No. 3:24-cv-01041.
Two More Class-Actions Certified
Meanwhile, Louisiana prisoners continue to face a one-in-four chance that they won’t be freed when their sentences end. Challenging that were two more suits proceeding in the district court. In the first, lead Plaintiff Brian Humphrey sought to certify a class of over-detained state prisoners suing for damages. In the other, lead Plaintiffs Joel Giroir and Bryant White also asked the district court to certify a class, but they wanted only an injunction forcing the DPSC to fix the problem. On September 22, 2025, the district court granted both Plaintiffs’ requests.
The cases had been consolidated for the purposes of conducting a hearing on the class certification motions. When the hearing ended in October 2023, the district court took up the class certification motions—for Humphrey, it was all state prisoners released 48 hours or more after their sentences ended since April 2019; for Giroir and White, it was all state prisoners who were or will be released 48 hours or more after their sentences have ended.
Humphrey and Giroir were both held 27 days past the expiration of their sentences. White was held 53 days too long. Humphrey was finally released in 2019, the others two years later. Though they were in the custody of the DPSC, all three were held in parish jails—like nearly half of all those serving a state sentence in Louisiana. Crucially, neither jail received the “pre-class” packet from the DPSC in time to release the prisoners when their sentences ended; in each case, the packet arrived 10 days later or more. DPSC argued that its failures were not intentional, so they were not legally actionable. But the district court pointed to the Fifth Circuit’s decisions in similar cases, noting that most found no basis for granting qualified immunity to former DPSC Director James LeBlanc, who has since been replaced by current Director Gary Wescott.
Finding all other requirements had been met for certification—including sufficient numerosity of plaintiffs, commonality and typicality of the named Plaintiffs to represent the class, as well as common questions of law predominating the claims—the district court granted class certification to the claims in both suits, except those in Humphrey’s case seeking redress for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Plaintiffs in both suits were represented by attorneys with Most & Associates and Promise of Justice Initiative in New Orleans, as well as Loevy & Loevy in Chicago. See: Humphrey v. LeBlanc, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185604 (M.D. La.).
Both cases remain open, and PLN will report future rulings as they come down. What seems clear is that the DPSC would like to maintain the status quo, securing release for prisoners when everyone gets around to it. The agency argued to the district court during the class certification hearing that improvements made since these cases were filed have reduced the number of over-detentions—as if some minimum number were acceptable. What number might that be? Citing its lengthy list of “pending litigation,” the DPSC refused to provide any numbers to back up its claim.
Additional source: The Advocate
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Humphrey v. LeBlanc
| Year | 2025 |
|---|---|
| Cite | 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 185604 (M.D. La.) |
| Level | District Court |