Facts

Plaintiff Marshall Bailey was convicted of burglary and transporting stolen property in 1982 and sentenced to concurrent state and federal terms. He was released on bail by federal authorities in Kentucky in 1983 after completing his federal term. Plaintiff then moved to Georgia. In 2008, he was extradited from Georgia to serve the remainder of his 1982 state prison sentence.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiff contended he was concurrently sentenced in 1982 to State and Federal imprisonment for burglary and transportation of stolen property. Plaintiff alleged he provided "valuable information" leading to the conviction of a number of Colombian drug traffickers and was moved while in federal custody to Kentucky for his protection. After concluding his federal sentence of two years, plaintiff contended that California was notified of his imminent release by federal authorities in Kentucky, but failed and refused to pick him up for transport back to California. Plaintiff alleged he was then released on bail and allowed to go home to Georgia, leaving an address where he could be found.

From 1983 to September 2008 California issued notices and other paperwork indicating that it wanted to have Bailey brought back to finish his sentence in California. Plaintiff contended he was detained, but not picked up. Plaintiff claimed he had not escaped as California ultimately concluded years later after an investigation and his wrongful imprisonment. Plaintiff claimed he agreed to go numerous times, however, California authorities for over 25 years made no effort to transport him back. Plaintiff claimed California authorities falsely informed a Georgia court that there was a warrant for him on a charge of escape from their custody, but there was no such warrant and he had never been in their custody, as he was initially taken into and released from federal custody. Nevertheless, when again contacted in September 2008, he again waived extradition, expecting upon arriving in California to go into court where he could show that the charge of escape was unfounded. Instead he was taken to prison for almost three years. Plaintiff claimed that taking him into custody 25 years later was unlawful.

Plaintiff claimed that he was either granted a de facto parole status, as some of the state's paperwork listed him as a parolee, or due to his being at liberty without being an escapee, he had day for day credit against his sentence and was a free man as he had been told by a Georgia court and its governor's office.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
State of California argued that plaintiff was never paroled, pardoned, or otherwise excused from serving the remainder of his state prison term when federal authorities released him on bail in Kentucky in 1983. Defendants contended that plaintiff avoided California authorities for almost three decades. The State maintained that it sought plaintiff's return to California at all times.

Damages

Plaintiff alleged he was deprived of his home, family, and livelihood.

Result

The court granted the state's motion for nonsuit at the close of plaintiff's case. The court ruled that plaintiff's case was based on hearsay and speculation and that plaintiff presented no evidence that he was ever paroled, or otherwise discharged of his state prison sentence, prior to his 2008 extradition to serve the remainder of his term.

Other Information

EXPERT TESTIMONY: Plaintiff's expert Richard Subia, former California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation director, opined that the State maliciously withheld or lost records from plaintiff's central file, which might have contained evidence that plaintiff was paroled or pardoned at some prior time. Subia opined that the Dept. of Corrections abused the extradition process by stating that Bailey was an escaped prisoner. FILING DATE: Nov. 7, 2012.