Chester Loyde Bird v. Wyoming Board of Parole, Daniel M. Fetsco, Executive Director, and Wyoming Department of Corrections, Robert O. Lampert, Director
2016 WY 100
| Wyo. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Chester L. Bird, serving concurrent life sentences "according to law," sued Wyoming Board of Parole (WBOP) and Wyoming Department of Corrections (WDOC) under the Declaratory Judgment Act asserting multiple constitutional challenges to statutes and agency policies; district court dismissed; appeal followed.
- Central statutory provision: Wyo. Stat. § 7-16-205(a)(i) (2010) requires withholding a portion of inmate earnings into a savings account to $1,000 for distribution upon parole or final discharge; Nicodemus construed it to apply to "life according to law" sentences.
- Bird asserted: equal protection challenges to the savings statute and WDOC good-time policy (life-according-to-law prisoners excluded from good time), implied repeal of parole statute by the savings statute, separation-of-powers defect in WBOP commutation policies, due process and ex post facto challenges to WBOP’s amended commutation-application procedure.
- Relevant legal distinctions: "life without parole" vs. "life according to law" — both ineligible for parole but differ as to clemency: commutation (possible for life according to law) vs. pardon; commutation is discretionary and not a vested right.
- Procedural posture: complaint dismissed for failure to state a claim (W.R.C.P. 12(b)(6)); Wyoming Supreme Court reviewed issues and affirmed dismissal across all claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Equal protection challenge to Wyo. Stat. § 7-16-205(a)(i) (mandatory savings) | Bird: life-according-to-law and life-without-parole prisoners are similarly situated; withholding savings from some violates equal protection | State: legislature rationally distinguishes classes based on prospects for release/clemency and penological objectives | Affirmed dismissal — statute survives rational-basis review; legitimate state interest and rational basis exist |
| 2. Equal protection challenge to WDOC good-time policy (excludes life prisoners) | Bird: life-according-to-law prisoners are like term-of-years prisoners and should get good time | State: life-according-to-law prisoners lack a vested release right (only clemency); good-time policy furthers incentives for rehabilitation and is rationally related | Affirmed dismissal — not similarly situated; no equal protection violation |
| 3. Implied repeal: did § 7-16-205(a)(i) repeal Wyo. Stat. § 7-13-402(a) (parole ineligibility)? | Bird: mandatory savings shows legislature intended parole eligibility, so parole bar was implicitly repealed | State: statutes cover different subjects and are not repugnant; repeals by implication disfavored | Affirmed dismissal — no implied repeal; both statutes can coexist |
| 4. Separation of powers: WBOP policies governing commutation applications | Bird: legislature must set application procedure; WBOP usurped legislative power | State: statutes authorize WBOP to make recommendations and adopt rules to carry out assigned functions | Affirmed dismissal — delegation to WBOP within legislature's authority; no separation violation |
| 5. Due process: WBOP amended commutation application procedure | Bird: amendment deprived him of procedural due process rights | State: no liberty or property interest in commutation; clemency is discretionary | Affirmed dismissal — no protected interest; due process claim fails |
| 6. Ex post facto: WBOP changed commutation application frequency (yearly → every five years) | Bird: amendment increases punishment or burdens his sentence retroactively | State: commutation is discretionary; policy change creates only speculative risk of increased punishment | Affirmed dismissal — no significant risk of increased punishment; ex post facto claim fails |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicodemus v. Lampert, 336 P.3d 671 (Wyo. 2014) (construed mandatory inmate savings statute to apply to life-according-to-law sentences)
- City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, 473 U.S. 432 (U.S. 1985) (equal protection principle: similarly situated persons should be treated alike)
- California Dept. of Corrections v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499 (U.S. 1995) (ex post facto analysis: requires a significant risk that law increases punishment)
- Mistretta v. United States, 488 U.S. 361 (U.S. 1989) (permissible delegation principles; Congress may delegate with intelligible principle)
- Dumschat v. Connecticut Board of Pardons, 452 U.S. 458 (U.S. 1981) (no constitutional right to commutation; clemency is discretionary)
- Reiter v. State, 36 P.3d 586 (Wyo. 2001) (definition and analysis of "similarly situated" in equal protection context)
- Hochalter v. City of Gillette, 120 P.3d 674 (Wyo. 2005) (standard for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6))