Opinion
Civil No. 2:01CV-860J
May 3, 2003
Xianwen Wu, Pro se.
T.J. Tsakalos, Deputy District Attorney.
FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
This matter coming before the court for trial. on April 14, 2003, with the plaintiff appearing pro se and with a Mandarin interpreter, and Paul Cunningham appearing, with T.J. Tsakalos as counsel, and the court having considered the exhibits, proffers of evidence and testimony,
Now, therefore, the court makes the following findings of fact:
1. The plaintiff was arrested on November 17, 1997 by the Salt Lake City police for a domestic violence charge.
2. He was booked into the Salt Lake County Metro Jail.
3. Defendant Paul Cunningham was the chief of the jail at that time.
4. Within several hours of having been booked, Pretrial Services, through the efforts of Pat Kimball, contacted the plaintiff and evaluated him for pretrial release.
5. Mr. Kimball met and spoke with the plaintiff in English, had available interpretation services if they were needed, and reasonably concluded that an interpreter was not needed. There was no indication that Kimball needed an interpreter to communicate with the plaintiff
6. The plaintiff speaks English well enough to understand and communicate, he is a graduate of the BYU Law School's International Program, and he is a highly educated individual.
7. Plaintiff signed the no contact order presented by Pat Kimball, he was aware or should have been aware that bail was set at $500.00 upon his signing the no contact order, that a bondsman could have been contacted to post bail, or that he could have posted the bail, since he did not qualify for release on his own recognizance.
8. Plaintiff refused or was unable to list friends or relatives in his interview with Pat Kimball, he failed to communicate with anyone while he was in the jail, and he failed to take advantage of opportunities to either post bail, secure a bond, or make contact with individuals who could secure his release.
9. The court finds that these efforts by Kimball were reasonable in securing to Mr. Wu the opportunity to leave the jail under bond or bail since he did not qualify for pretrial release on his own recognizance.
10. Defendant Cunningham was charged with operating the jail and was not responsible for and did not operate pretrial services.
Based on the foregoing findings, the court enters the following conclusions of law:
1. There was no violation of the Constitutional rights of the plaintiff
2. There was no procedural or substantive violation of his Due Process rights.
3. The bail that was set was not excessive.
4. There was no deliberate indifference on behalf of Salt Lake County, Pat Kimball, Paul Cunningham, or any other Salt Lake County defendants.
5. Plaintiff remained in jail not as a result of the fault of the County, the Third District Court, or any other party.
6. There was no policy or practice of the Salt Lake County Commission that led to any violation of the plaintiff's rights.
7. Paul Cunningham did not evidence any deliberate indifference or any other wrong towards the plaintiff, and had no liability towards the release of the plaintiff under the guidelines of Pretrial Services, bond, or bail.
8. Further, even if there were any violation of a clearly established right, the court finds that the defendants are not liable under the doctrine of Qualified Immunity.
9. The defendants also requested a final judgment be entered in this case consistent with the findings of facts and conclusions of law and the court so orders.