Bowers v. Keller
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17871
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Bowers, serving a life term for 1976 murder, seeks habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging Parole Commission actions.
- Parole Act created an independent Parole Commission with procedures to ensure fair consideration of parole decisions.
- Bowers’ mandatory parole proceedings began with a December 21, 2004 hearing recommending parole effective February 21, 2005; original jurisdiction decision granted parole.
- February 17, 2005, reopening was issued to consider new information after the victim’s widow sought to speak; § 2.28(f) process invoked for a special reconsideration hearing.
- June 14, 2005, the Parole Commission reopened the case in a split vote (2-2-1) to consider the Attorney General’s petition for reconsideration of the original jurisdiction decision.
- The Attorney General later petitioned for review; in October 2005, the Commission denied parole after a closed-session reconsideration, citing new alleged misconduct and continued political beliefs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lawfulness of Feb. 17, 2005 reopening | Bowers argues reopening lacked authority. | Parole Commission contends reopening based on new adverse information under § 2.28(f). | Lawful reopening under § 2.28(f). |
| Validity of the June 14, 2005 reopening | Spagnoli’s unilateral memorandum tainted the process. | Original jurisdiction could be reconsidered; majority voting may justify reopening. | Reopening tainted by Spagnoli’s unauthorized actions; vacated. |
| Remedy for tainted reopening | District court should grant immediate release or reinstate May 2005 parole grant. | Remedy is to remand and allow proper Parole Commission action, not immediate release. | Remand to Parole Commission; do not order immediate release. |
| Attorney General involvement in original jurisdiction decision | Attorney General’s review attempt biased proceedings. | AG review permissible under procedures; not dispositive of taint. | Not dispositive; focus is on Commissioner bias; taint invalidates June 14 ruling. |
Key Cases Cited
- Glumb v. Honsted, 891 F.2d 872 (11th Cir. 1990) (unauthorized action taints parole decision)
- Lewis v. Beeler, 949 F.2d 325 (10th Cir. 1991) (new information can be considered 'new' if not previously received)
- Goble v. Matthews, 814 F.2d 1104 (6th Cir. 1987) (new and significant adverse information may trigger reopening)
- Dye v. United States Parole Comm'n, 558 F.2d 1376 (10th Cir. 1977) (parole decisionmaking must be independent from DOJ investigations)
- Jones v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 903 F.2d 1178 (8th Cir. 1990) (remedies do not include automatic prisoner release; proper remand procedure)