Jesse Redmond v. Isaac Fulwood, Jr.
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 10257
| D.C. Cir. | 2017Background
- Jesse R. Redmond, Jr. was convicted in D.C. in 1996 of first-degree sexual assault and sentenced to 15 years to life; he became parole-eligible in 2011.
- Redmond was denied parole at a 2010 pre-eligibility hearing and again in 2011; the 2011 denial occurred despite a Hearing Examiner’s recommendation to grant parole under the applicable guidelines.
- Redmond, proceeding pro se, sued Isaac Fulwood, Jr., then-Chairman of the U.S. Parole Commission, in his personal capacity under Bivens, alleging constitutional violations stemming from the parole denials.
- The district court dismissed the complaint sua sponte under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, concluding parole commissioners are absolutely immune from suit; Redmond appealed.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed dismissal but on alternative grounds: the panel held Fulwood was entitled to qualified immunity for each claim, so it did not decide whether absolute immunity applies to parole commissioners.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Fulwood violated due process by ignoring Redmond’s acquittals on sodomy charges | Redmond: the Commission failed to account for acquittals when denying parole | Fulwood: he acknowledged the acquittals in the reconsideration decision | Held: No plausible constitutional violation; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether denial relied impermissibly on failure to complete rehabilitative programs unavailable at Redmond’s facility | Redmond: was denied for not completing programs he could not access | Fulwood: advised transfer or participation in alternative programs; advising participation is permissible | Held: No constitutional violation; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether reliance on an erroneous parole guideline (salient factor) score violated rights | Redmond: Commission used an incorrect score to deny parole | Fulwood: acknowledged the scoring error; guidelines recommended parole anyway and Commission may depart | Held: Error immaterial because Commission lawfully overrode guideline recommendation; qualified immunity applies |
| Whether factoring Redmond’s continued proclamation of innocence violated First or Fifth Amendment / due process | Redmond: refusal to admit guilt was impermissibly used against him | Fulwood: considering lack of acceptance of responsibility is permissible and not clearly unconstitutional | Held: No clearly established law prohibiting consideration of refusal to admit guilt; qualified immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Taylor v. Reilly, 685 F.3d 1110 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (qualified-immunity analysis can resolve immunity questions without addressing absolute immunity)
- Radtke v. Caschetta, 822 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (appellate courts may affirm on alternative grounds)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731 (2011) (qualified-immunity test requires clearly established law)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (2007) (pro se complaints are construed liberally)
- McKune v. Lile, 536 U.S. 24 (2002) (plurality: conditioning rehabilitative-program benefits on admission of guilt can be constitutionally permissible)
- Newman v. Beard, 617 F.3d 775 (3d Cir. 2010) (requiring admission of guilt for parole-related benefits does not violate First Amendment)
- McRae v. Hyman, 667 A.2d 1356 (D.C. 1995) (D.C. parole scheme vests discretionary authority to grant or deny parole)