Aimee Hankins v. Tim Lowe
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 8210
7th Cir.2015Background
- Hankins, convicted in Arkansas of felony battery, received parole (not prison) then violated parole and was re-released in March 2007; supervision transferred to Illinois under Interstate Compact.
- Parole officer Tim Lowe supervised Hankins and allegedly refused to tell her when parole would expire, stating Arkansas would determine the date and could revoke for inquiring.
- Expiration date is disputed: documents show January 2010 or May 2012, with no determination which is correct; in February 2011 Lowe informed Hankins that parole had expired.
- If expiration was January 2010, Hankins remained subject to parole conditions from January 2010 through February 2011 (about 13 months).
- Conditions during that period included requiring approval to leave her county, consent to home visits, and mandatory counseling.
- District court dismissed Hankins’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim as insufficiently plausible; the Seventh Circuit reversed in part and remanded for further proceedings on the Eighth Amendment issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether extending parole custody beyond expiration violates the Eighth Amendment. | Hankins argues Lowe deliberateindifferently prolonged confinement. | Lowe contends no culpable mental state and no authority to adjust the outdate. | Reversed on this claim; remanded for further proceedings. |
| Whether Lowe's knowledge and actions satisfy deliberate indifference. | Lowe knew of risk and refused to obtain expiration date information. | Lowe lacked power to fix the outdate and his actions were not culpable. | Reversal affirmed; issue to be reconsidered on remand. |
| Whether Lowe had authority to adjust Hankins's parole outdate. | Ask was for information, not adjustment; Lowe should have provided it. | Lowe had no authority to change the outdate; information-gathering was not his duty. | Remand appropriate; this issue unresolved at this stage. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. Cunningham, 371 U.S. 236 (1963) (parolees may pursue habeas and related §1983 claims when parole is unlawful)
- Cochran v. Buss, 381 F.3d 637 (7th Cir. 2004) (parole conditions and custody implications analyzed)
- White v. Indiana Parole Board, 266 F.3d 759 (7th Cir. 2001) (parole restrictions and due process considerations)
- Haygood v. Younger, 769 F.2d 1350 (9th Cir. 1985) (en banc; cruel and unusual punishment for unlawful custody extension)
- Armato v. Grounds, 766 F.3d 713 (7th Cir. 2014) (deliberate indifference and custody-related claims in parole context)
- Sample v. Diecks, 885 F.2d 1099 (3d Cir. 1989) (timing and accountability in post-release confinement contexts)