New Jersey Woman Wrongly Jailed for Weeks Can’t Sue U.S. Marshals After Second Arrest Due to ‘Reasonable Mistake,’ Court Rules

A federal appeals court concluded last week that a Black woman who was wrongfully arrested at gunpoint, handcuffed, frisked, cavity searched, and imprisoned for two weeks in New Jersey and Pennsylvania could not sue six U.S. Marshals.

U.S. Marshals and local law enforcement arrested Judith Maureen Henry, 74, at her Newark home at 7 a.m. on Aug. 22, 2019, on an arrest warrant for a woman with the same name who had skipped parole on a Pennsylvania cocaine possession conviction 26 years ago.

Henry denied being the Judith Maureen Henry identified in the warrant, which was delivered to New Jersey officials by the Pennsylvania parole board with her photo and home address, in her 2020 lawsuit.

Henry was originally incarcerated for 10 days at Essex County Correctional Facility in New Jersey, then for four more days at two Pennsylvania prisons. Her complaint states that she tried to persuade marshals, sheriffs, jail, and prison officials to compare her photo, fingerprints, and date of birth to their genuine parolee target’s criminal record.

Police and correctional officials didn’t do so until Sept. 3, when Henry’s fingerprints didn’t match the absconder’s. Two days later, she was released from Muncy’s Pennsylvania women’s prison with $20 for food and a bus ticket to Newark’s Penn Station.

Henry said she was denied blood pressure and claustrophobia drugs, cavity searched while naked, and unable to defend her case to a judge. She said she was frightened, and embarrassed, and had increased anxiety, migraines, physical pain, and shortness of breath.

In her 2021 revised lawsuit, Henry identified 30 defendants, including Essex County, Pennsylvania Interstate Parole Services, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and scores of police enforcement and corrections agents, including six deputy U.S. marshals.

Her case asserted state and federal law violations for abuse of process, false arrest and detention, intentional infliction of emotional distress, failures to teach and supervise, and conspiracy.

Judge Thomas Ambro, writing for a three-judge panel of the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, dismissed the marshals last week, overturning a district court ruling.

The New Jersey Monitor said that Ambro granted the marshals limited immunity for acting on a “constitutionally valid” order.

“So their arrest of Henry relying on warrant information was a reasonable mistake, and therefore her arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment,” Ambro said.

The judge stated that “Henry’s complaint — that the marshals failed to take her claims of innocence seriously — raises a host of policy questions about the Marshals Service’s role after they apprehend a suspect on a warrant for a crime they did not investigate

He asked: How solid must an arrest-related claim of innocence be before investigation? Should marshals or state police investigate? When and how deep should that probe be?

“We acknowledge that the answers are easily accessible and would not burden the Marshals,” he stated, arguing that Congress, not the judiciary, should determine if potential encroachment on the executive branch’s investigatory function is justified.

Despite her pleas of innocence, Henry claimed false arrest, false incarceration, and conspiracy because the arresting officers and jailers concluded she was guilty “merely because of her lower economic status” and that she was “a [B]lack woman from Jamaica.”

Ambro found that the marshals did not conspire to deny her equal protection under constitutional law because a plaintiff “must show some racial, or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus [lay] behind conspirators’ action.” “We need not accept this bare conclusion,” said Ambro, “and she offers no other allegations to support it.” Henry claimed her treatment was due to her ethnicity and economic background.

Henry’s case still targets two dozen defendants, including those involved in her detention and two-week confinement. According to Atlanta Black Star, her attorney Tisha Adams will not discuss her case strategy.

The remaining defendants include parole staff technologist Timothy Riegle of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, whom Henry blames for starting her legal nightmare by delivering the warrant to Essex County, New Jersey.

Henry claims that Riegle searched for Judith Maureen Henry and chose her Newark address for the arresting cops, attaching her driver’s license photo to the order.

Her complaint alleges that Pennsylvania parole board managers wrongly instructed Riegle, who did not check Judith Henry’s fingerprints or seek one from law enforcement. The fugitive’s complaint states that Riegle did not note physical traits, scars, marks and tattoos, the height difference between the fugitive and Ms. Henry, or birth dates.

Henry claims she’s been mistaken for the fugitive before.

Her complaint accuses Riegle of not contacting Don Young, a correctional officer who knew Ms. Henry had been arrested and misrepresented as parolee in 2000. An arrest in Chambersburg, Pennsylvania, where a parole supervisor mentioned as a defendant in the current case was found, revealed the parolee’s identifying marks.

No physical descriptors, date of birth, FBI number, fingerprint card, or immigration detainer were reviewed for the subject being arrested, detained, and extradited. The complaint said Riegle neglected to contact Don Young, who knew Ms. Henry and the person he wanted, since 2000.

Henry wants a jury trial, compensatory and punitive damages, and attorney fees.

When Essex County officials answered her modified complaint in 2021, they denied most of her accusations or said they didn’t have enough information to decide. They claimed qualified and absolute immunity, “acted in good faith and with reasonable and probable cause based on the then existing circumstances,” “without malice,” and “free of any and all negligence” in all of her claims.