to satisfy the pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8 to state a viable over-detention claim, as well as any binding legal authority in support of such a claim. The CCS Defendants argue that they did not have any input whatsoever in how long David was detained and, therefore, Plaintiff fails to state a viable Fourteenth Amendment claim against them. For the reasons that follow, the Court finds merit to some of Defendants’ arguments. The Sixth Circuit has recognized a due process claim arising from an inmate’s incarceration beyond his or her court ordered release date. Shorts v. Bartholomew, 255 Fed.Appx. 46 (6th Cir.2007). As the court explained: .. .when a prisoner’s sentence has expired, he is entitled to release. Whirl v. Kern, 407 F.2d 781, 791 (5th Cir.1969) (<HOLDING>). Perhaps more to the point, an incarcerated
holding a sentence is not limited to period of incarceration holding that there is no privilege in a jailer to keep a prisoner in jail beyond the period of his lawful sentence holding that the defendants possession of contraband in a jail was not the result of a voluntary act on his part because officers brought him into the jail under arrest holding that a court has no power to impose jail time as a condition of a deferred sentence holding that the evidence was insufficient to prove the offense of supplying contraband to a jail because the defendant was not in possession of the drugs when he was taken to jail where the arresting officer entered the jail with the drugs