of Figgs’s complaints violated his constitutional rights by requiring him to serve more time than his sentence required. See id. at 700-01 (“[W]e must determine whether it was clearly established that the defendants, in revoking the good conduct credits and computing a new release date after the recommitment, were violating Campbell’s constitutional rights by requiring him to serve more time than state law and his sentence required.”). At the time Figgs presented his complaints, it was clearly established by decisions in closely analogous cases that the failure to investigate a claim that an inmate is being held longer than the lawful term of his sentence violates the Eighth Amendment if it is the result of indifference. See Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350, 1354-55 (9th Cir. 1985) (<HOLDING>); Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099, 1108-10 (3d
holding that in order to state a violation of the eighth amendment an inmate must demonstrate that prison officials showed deliberate indifference to serious medical needs holding that the eighth amendment protects prisoners only from deliberate indifference to their serious medical needs holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation holding that the eighth amendment is violated when prolonged detention is the result of deliberate indifference where prison officials failed to investigate claims in prisoners letter questioning the method used to compute his release date holding that when a prisoners deliberate indifference claim is covered by the eighth amendment the substantive due process claims are duplicative and thus the substantive due process claims should be dismissed