Richardson v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation

Background

Troy Alexander Richardson sued the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and individual CDCR employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and California statutory and common law. He alleged that he was released after serving the sentence imposed by the courts, but was then wrongly treated as an escaped prisoner and reincarcerated.

The parties agreed to early, limited cross-motions for partial summary judgment—meaning motions asking the court to decide part of a case without a trial—on the correct calculation of Richardson’s release date. Richardson argued that CDCR unlawfully recalculated his sentence after his July 14, 2016 release. The defendants argued that Richardson’s entire incarceration was lawful and that his claims therefore failed as a matter of law.

Sentencing and release-date history

Richardson originally received a ten-year sentence in May 2012: five years for second-degree robbery and a five-year firearm enhancement. The original abstract of judgment credited him with 212 days of actual local custody and 180 days of local conduct credit, for 392 total days.

In April 2013, Richardson was resentenced under an agreement that reduced his sentence by approximately one year based on his cooperation in an unrelated case. The sentencing court awarded 863 actual days and 130 local conduct credits, listed as 993 total days on the abstract of judgment. CDCR later questioned the credit calculation and the firearm enhancement. In October 2014, the court issued an amended abstract that restored the credit figures to the original 392 days and corrected other sentencing information.

At a December 22, 2014 resentencing hearing, the court changed the firearm enhancement from five years to four years, resulting in a nine-year total sentence. Richardson agreed to receive 159 additional days of credit related to his cooperation. The resulting abstract of judgment listed 1,313 actual days and 197 local conduct credits, for 1,510 total credits.

CDCR calculated Richardson’s earliest possible release date as July 14, 2016, and released him to parole supervision on that date. On September 12, 2016, a CDCR records analyst concluded that Richardson had been released too early and requested a warrant for his return. Richardson was seized and returned to custody. He remained in custody from September 15, 2016, until June 2, 2017, when a state court awarded him enough credits to deem his sentence served and released him.

Court’s analysis

The court explained that California law gives the sentencing court responsibility for determining presentence credits. It also noted that CDCR’s regulations directed credit disputes or conflicting sentencing documents to the sentencing court. The court further discussed California authority stating that a sentencing order may not be changed without notice and an opportunity to be heard.

The defendants argued that CDCR’s original release-date calculation failed to change the sentence’s starting date, causing Richardson to receive double credit for time served in CDCR custody. The court found, however, that the defendants had not provided the details of the calculation used to issue the September 2016 warrant. The court also found that the record was unclear about how the analyst reached the conclusion that Richardson had been released 923 days early.

Based on the December 2014 abstract of judgment, the court calculated a nine-year sentence beginning December 22, 2014, with 1,510 days of listed credits. After accounting for the credits and possible future credits, the court found an earliest possible release date of February 10, 2019. It stated that Richardson had therefore been released approximately 940 days earlier than that date, although the court’s calculation differed slightly from CDCR’s calculation and favored Richardson.

Disposition

The court denied both Richardson’s and the defendants’ motions for partial summary judgment based on the record and the limited scope of the motions. The court did not decide whether CDCR was authorized to make the release-date determination before obtaining clarification from the sentencing judge. It also did not decide whether the defendants were liable for Richardson’s claims or whether qualified immunity or another defense applied.

The court extended Richardson’s deadline to file an amended complaint to January 24, 2020, required defendants to file responsive pleadings by February 7, 2020, and set a further case-management conference for March 2, 2020. The order terminated Docket Nos. 81 and 91.