Boling v. United States Parole Commission
Civil Action No. 2015-1623
| D.D.C. | Nov 30, 2017Background
- Boling, a D.C. parolee convicted in the 1970s, had his presumptive parole date rescinded and parole reconsideration deferred to December 2018 by the U.S. Parole Commission in a January 5, 2005 Notice of Action after post-release conduct and threats were considered.
- Boling previously challenged the Commission’s decisions via habeas petitions; the Tenth Circuit affirmed denial of relief, rejecting ex post facto, due process, and "double counting" challenges to the Commission’s guideline departure.
- In October 2015 Boling sued six USPC employees (in official and individual capacities) and a BOP case manager alleging conspiracy, fraud, forgery, perjury, and criminal violations (18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242), and sought injunctive relief and $50,000,000 in damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), asserting sovereign immunity, res judicata, lack of personal jurisdiction, and failure to state a claim.
- The court held: (1) sovereign immunity bars monetary claims against the Commission and officials sued in their official capacities; (2) res judicata/collateral estoppel bars equitable relief because the Tenth Circuit already resolved the same constitutional claims; and (3) the remaining individual-capacity damages claims are frivolous and dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sovereign immunity for official-capacity damages | Boling sought money damages from USPC and officials under constitutional and civil-rights statutes | United States has not waived sovereign immunity for constitutional torts, §§ 1985/1986, or criminal statutes cited | Dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; no waiver of sovereign immunity |
| Availability of private cause of action under criminal statutes | Boling invoked 18 U.S.C. §§ 241, 242 for civil relief | Criminal statutes do not create private civil causes of action | Dismissed; no private right under those statutes |
| Preclusive effect of prior habeas adjudications (res judicata / collateral estoppel) | Boling reasserted claims challenging the January 2005 Notice of Action and related due process/ex post facto/contentions | Prior habeas litigation in Kansas/Tenth Circuit adjudicated same issues on the merits | Equitable relief barred by res judicata / collateral estoppel; claims precluded |
| Personal-capacity damages under § 1983/§ 1985/§ 1986 | Boling alleged conspiracies and constitutional violations by individual defendants | Defendants argued failure to plead class-based animus under § 1985; prior appellate rulings dispose of constitutional claims; criminal statutes provide no private remedy | Individual-capacity damages claims are frivolous and dismissed; § 1985/§ 1986 claims fail for lack of class-based animus; § 1983 damages lack merit given preclusion |
Key Cases Cited
- Meyer v. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp., 510 U.S. 471 (sovereign immunity bars constitutional tort claims against the United States)
- Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (official-capacity suits are suits against the entity; sovereign immunity principles)
- Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187 (waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocal)
- Griffin v. Breckenridge, 403 U.S. 88 (§ 1985(3) requires class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus)
- Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098 (individual USPC members may be subject to suit in certain circumstances)
- Taylor v. Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880 (claim and issue preclusion principles)
- Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 961 F.2d 245 (three-part test for preclusive effect of prior adjudication)