774 F. Supp. 2d 54
D.D.C.2011Background
- Fisher, a state prisoner, is incarcerated at USP Lee and sues USPC officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 over parole-grid calculations.
- Plaintiff alleges the USPC applied the 2000 guidelines instead of the DC Parole Board’s 1987 regulations and 1991 guidelines, or applied 1987 without 1991 guidelines.
- Revitalization Act (1997) abolished the DC Parole Board; USPC has conducted DC offenders’ parole hearings since 1998 under DC parole laws and regulations.
- Origins of the grid: SFS, BPS, TPS, and grid-score-based parole outcomes; 1987 regs and 1991 guidelines formed the prior framework, later supplemented by 2000 guidelines.
- Plaintiff sought a rehearing reducing grid score from 3 to 2 by applying 1987 regs with 1991 guidelines; no explicit parole-release demand.
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and failure to state a claim; the court partially granted and partially denied the motion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex Post Facto applicability of 2000 guidelines | Fisher contends 2000 guidelines raise parole punishment compared to 1987/1991. | Defendants argue plaintiff concedes 1987/1991 were applied or that no ex post facto claim exists. | Ex post facto claim survives Rule 12(b)(6) considerations and may proceed. |
| Due Process liberty interest in parole | Fisher asserts a Fifth Amendment liberty interest in parole if grid score is low. | No liberty interest exists under DC parole regulations; discretion resides with parole authorities. | No due process liberty interest; §1983 claims dismissed as to due process. |
| Personal involvement of Denton under §1983 | Denton participated in parole review and acted with others to deprive rights. | Denton lacks specific alleged actions tying him to the unconstitutional decision. | Denton’s claims dismissed for lack of specific, pled involvement. |
| Liability of Howard for alleged violation | Howard personally conducted the hearing and allegedly applied 2000 guidelines. | General assertions insufficient; need specific acts tying to violation. | Howard remains potentially liable; personal involvement established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413 (D.C.Cir.1996) (DC prisoner parole case; no liberty interest in parole under 1987 regulations)
- Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804 (D.C.Cir.1988) (§1983; habeas as remedy; procedural challenges may survive)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (Supreme Court 2005) (no liberty interest at stake for parole challenges under certain regimes)
- Sellmon v. Reilly, 551 F. Supp. 2d 66 (D.D.C.2008) (parole regulations/guidelines timeline; DC Revitalization Act context)
- Fletcher v. District of Columbia, 370 F.3d 1223 (D.C.Cir.2004) (parole‑related §1983 claims; extent of damages/relief against USPC employees)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard; plausibility required)