BLACKMON v. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
3:20-cv-07507-RK
| D.N.J. | Mar 25, 2024Background
- Craig Blackmon, a state prisoner in New Jersey, is serving a life sentence for murder, aggravated sexual assault, and possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose committed in 1985.
- In 2017, he became eligible for parole; a two-member Parole Board panel denied parole, noting the nature of his crimes, institutional infractions, and moderate recidivism risk, later amended to correct records about his prior convictions.
- A three-member panel then imposed a 120-month future eligibility term (FET) for parole, based on similar aggravating and mitigating factors and finding he lacked insight into his offenses.
- Blackmon appealed the parole denial through state courts, contesting due process and the fairness of the parole proceedings; all appeals were denied.
- He subsequently filed a pro se federal habeas petition claiming constitutional violations in the parole denial and FET imposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Parole Denial Retaliation | Parole denied in retaliation for appealing sentence | Petitioner received due process; no evidence of retaliation | No due process violation; claim denied. |
| Speculative/Inaccurate Basis | Parole denial based on speculation and inaccuracies | Parole Board used appropriate evidence and procedures | Decision supported by evidence; claim denied. |
| Lack of Neutral Board | Board chairman was biased due to prior involvement as arresting officer | Chairman did not participate in decision; routine signature | No impropriety; claim denied. |
| Extraordinary FET | Imposition of 120-month FET not supported by credible evidence | FET based on legitimate factors and inmate’s lack of progress | FET justified; claim denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (held that due process in parole proceedings requires only notice, an opportunity to be heard, and a statement of reasons for denial)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011) (affirmed minimal federal due process requirements in parole proceedings)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (set standards for when federal courts may grant habeas relief for state court decisions)
- Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2002) (explained high threshold for substantive due process challenges to parole)