Melvin Taylor v. Edward Reilly, Jr.
401 U.S. App. D.C. 486
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Taylor challenged the USPC’s retroactive use of the 2000 Regulations at his 2001 and 2005 parole hearings under the Ex Post Facto Clause.
- DC Code offender Taylor was initially sentenced in 1993 to a prison term up to 45 years with parole eligibility after one-third, net of good-time credits.
- The DC parole framework moved under USPC in 1997; in 2000, the USPC promulgated suitability-for-parole regulations that Taylor argued retroactively applied to him.
- Taylor’s habeas corpus petition in 2005 concluded the 2000 Regulations could create a significant risk of longer incarceration if applied to him, but remained inconclusive on relief.
- Taylor then sued four Parole Commissioners and one Parole Examiner under §1983 for damages and declaratory relief, while mootness defenses and immunity defenses were raised.
- A district court held that defendants were entitled to qualified immunity and dismissed, later affirmed on appeal; Taylor was given a new hearing under 1987 rules but sought damages remaining unresolved.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retroactive application of the 2000 Regulations violated Ex Post Facto. | Taylor asserts 2000 regs increased incarceration risk. | USPC contends no clear Ex Post Facto violation for every prisoner. | Not clearly established; qualified immunity applies. |
| Whether a fact-specific comparison between 2000 and 1987 regulations was required before applying the 2000 regs. | Parole officials were on notice to compare regimes. | No controlling authority required such comparison in all cases. | Not clearly established; no duty to conduct such comparison. |
| Whether the district court properly dismissed the damages claim on qualified immunity grounds. | Taylor seeks damages for Ex Post Facto violation. | Officials are entitled to qualified immunity given lack of clearly established right. | Affirmed; qualified immunity blocks damages claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (U.S. 2000) (Ex Post Facto retroactivity requires significant risk of longer incarceration)
- Fletcher v. District of Columbia (Fletcher I), 391 F.3d 250 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (remanded for fact-specific analysis; facial distinctions noted)
- Fletcher v. Reilly (Fletcher II), 433 F.3d 867 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (approved searching comparison after credible claim of risk)
- Phillips v. Fulwood, 616 F.3d 577 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (regulations and guideline ranges; applied to Parole context)
- Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635 (U.S. 1987) (clearly established standard requires specific and reasonable understanding)
- Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 131 S. Ct. 2074 (S. Ct. 2011) (clearly established right must be beyond debate in the relevant context)
- Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 (U.S. 1982) (qualified immunity framework for public officials)
- Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1999) (no clearly established violation where no controlling authority cited)