Nelson v. Williams, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 119634

Nelson, a fully-incarcerated plaintiff with a long parole history, sues multiple US parole authorities and medical/administrative staff, alleging Ex Post Facto, First, Fifth, and Eighth Amendment violations related to arrest, parole revocation, and custody.
Plaintiff was sentenced for armed robbery in 1986, paroled in 1998, and moved to USPC supervision; in 2003 he was placed on inactive supervision under the Revitalization Act.
In 2006 he was convicted in Maryland of First Degree Assault; USPC issued a parole violation warrant, leading to revocation proceedings in 2007 and denial of street time credit, extending his custody to the original term.
Administrative decisions relied on USPC guidelines and Maryland offense details, with appeals affirming the parole revocation and credit denial; plaintiff asserts due process and ex post facto concerns.
Plaintiff’s complaint is largely conclusory; the Court must determine if the claims are plausible and properly pled against the named defendants in their individual capacities.
The Court grants all motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction over FTCA claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Nelson stated a First Amendment retaliation claim.	Nelson alleges defendants conspired to retaliate for exercising rights to Grievance/Relief.	No factual basis showing causation or protected activity linkage; claim inadequately pled.	Retaliation claim dismissed.
Whether Nelson stated a Fifth Amendment due process claim.	Due process violations for BOP/USPC handling of parole violation and hearing timing.	No identifiable policy or named BOP defendant; delay not a cognizable due process violation here.	Due process claims dismissed.
Whether Nelson stated an Eighth Amendment claim based on detention beyond sentence.	Custody exceeded his sentence due to parole revocation.	USPC lawfully revoked parole; detention justified as punishment for parole violation.	Eighth Amendment claim dismissed.
Whether Nelson stated an Ex Post Facto claim based on parole guidelines.	USPC retroactively applied guidelines to lengthen incarceration.	Issue barred by prior determinations; lack of clear retroactive disadvantage shown.	Ex Post Facto claim dismissed; issue preclusion noted.
Whether Nelson stated a valid FTCA damages claim against the Parole Commissioners.	Damages for constitutional torts under FTCA.	FTCA not waiver for constitutional claims and quasi-judicial immunity bars damages against parole officials.	FTCA damages claim dismissed.

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard for pleading not mere conclusory statements)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (U.S. 2009) (rejects bare assertions; requires plausible claims)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. 1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)
Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (U.S. 1976) (parolee not entitled to prompt revocation hearing when detainer exists)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (due process in parole revocation includes notice and hearing)
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322 (U.S. 1979) (issue preclusion principles and final judgments)
Montana v. United States, 440 U.S. 147 (U.S. 1979) (claim preclusion basis for law-of-the-case outcomes)
Meyer v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, 929 F. Supp. 10 (D.D.C. 1996) (FTCA does not waive constitutional tort claims)
United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206 (U.S. 1983) (consent of United States required for suit)