Hill v. United States Parole Commission
Civil Action No. 2016-1476
| D.D.C. | Jun 2, 2017Background
- Arnold J. Hill, serving a 20-years-to-life D.C. sentence for a 1987 murder, became parole-eligible in 2007 and has been through multiple USPC hearings and rehearings from 2007–2016; the Commission granted parole in Nov. 2011 but later reopened and rescinded that grant after victim-family testimony.
- The U.S. Parole Commission handles D.C. Code offenders after Congress abolished the D.C. Board of Parole; the Commission applies D.C. parole law to local offenders but uses a different internal appeal procedure for federal and D.C. cases.
- Hill alleged (1) inadequate notice before the July 2012 special reconsideration hearing about the victim-family testimony, (2) unequal treatment because D.C. Code offenders lack an intermediate appeal to the National Appeals Board, and (3) that the rescission of his parole was arbitrary/unreasonable; he sued under § 1983 and the APA seeking reinstatement or a rehearing and declaratory relief.
- After Hill filed suit in July 2016, the Commission again reopened the matter and held a November 2016 rehearing where Hill, represented, and victim witnesses testified; the Commission denied parole and set a two-year rehearing.
- The Government moved to dismiss; the court considered sovereign-immunity, § 1983 viability, due process/APA notice claims, equal-protection and APA challenges to appeals procedures, and whether review of the rescission is barred because relief would implicate habeas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Notice of victim-family testimony before July 2012 rehearing (due process / APA) | Hill: USPC failed to give adequate notice of the nature of victim-family testimony, impairing preparation and counsel retention. | USPC: No protected liberty interest in parole before release; and moot because Commission later reopened and Hill received a November 2016 rehearing with notice and counsel. | Court: Dismissed notice claims—no protected pre-release liberty interest and claims moot because Hill received rehearing with notice. |
| Equal protection / APA challenge to lack of intermediate appeals for D.C. Code offenders | Hill: D.C. offenders lack the intermediate NAB appeal available to federal offenders, causing disparate, unconstitutional treatment. | USPC: D.C. and federal offenders are not similarly situated; differing procedures have rational bases (replication of former D.C. Board, incremental implementation, budget/staffing). | Court: Dismissed equal-protection and procedural APA claims—groups not similarly situated and the Commission’s differing procedures survive rational-basis review; no additional process required. |
| Substantive due process / APA challenge to rescission of parole (arbitrary/unreasonable) | Hill: Rescission lacked justification; was arbitrary and unreasonable; seeks reversal and reinstatement of parole. | USPC: Parole decisions are discretionary and some parole-related agency acts are unreviewable; relief that would imply speedier release must be sought via habeas. | Court: Dismissed (without prejudice) these claims for lack of proper vehicle—claims that would necessarily shorten confinement must be brought in habeas, not § 1983/APA. |
| Sovereign immunity and § 1983 viability against Commissioners in official capacity | Hill: sued Commissioners (official capacity) and agency under APA; seeks injunctive/declaratory relief. | USPC: sovereign immunity bars suit against federal agency and maybe federal officers under § 1983. | Court: Sovereign immunity does not bar APA claims (waiver) or prospective official-capacity § 1983 relief; § 1983 viable here because Commissioners act under D.C. law for local parole. |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (no constitutional right to parole absent a statute creating entitlement)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (challenges to fact or duration of confinement must proceed via habeas)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) (habeas required when success would necessarily imply shorter confinement)
- Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306 (1950) (notice must be reasonably calculated to inform interested parties)
- Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (discussing substantive due process in extreme parole cases and remedy limits)
- Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 429 F.3d 1098 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (USPC Commissioners acting in D.C. parole role are amenable to § 1983 suits)
- Anyanwutaku v. Moore, 151 F.3d 1053 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (prisoner claims challenging fact or duration of confinement sound in habeas)
- Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14 (1981) (revocation of grant prior to release does not create a protected liberty interest)
- Warren v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 659 F.2d 183 (D.C. Cir. 1981) (background on indeterminate sentencing/parole framework)