Slip Opinion
D. Mont.Mar 7, 2022Background
- Plaintiff Jason Newberry, a Montana inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after parole-related grievances; court previously found the original complaint failed to state a claim and allowed an amended complaint.
- Amended complaint alleges the Parole Board used a scoring system, another inmate (John O. Miller) obtained a score sheet that Newberry did not, the Board required programming beyond the sentencing court’s orders, ignored medical records (need for back surgery), used profanity in his parole plan, and muted microphones to exclude him from discussions.
- Newberry also raised unrelated claims about conditions at Crossroads Correctional Center (legal access, medical care, COVID-19 protocols, transfer), included in his filings.
- Court concluded Montana law does not create a federal liberty interest in parole (statute uses "may" not "shall" since 1989) and Newberry therefore lacks a protected liberty interest in parole.
- Even assuming a liberty interest, Swarthout limits due process to an opportunity to be heard and a statement of reasons; Newberry received those guarantees and absented himself from hearings twice.
- Court dismissed the complaint and amended complaint for failure to state a claim, denied further leave to amend, and certified any appeal would not be taken in good faith.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection / "class-of-one" re: score sheet | Newberry argues Miller obtained a parole score sheet Newberry did not, showing irrational disparate treatment | Facts do not show Newberry was singled out or treated differently from other applicants; allegations are consistent with non-actionable differences | Dismissed — no plausible class-of-one or irrational discrimination alleged |
| Existence of federal liberty interest in parole | Newberry contends Board actions (extra programming, ignoring court orders) implicate a liberty interest in parole | Montana law uses "may" grant parole; no federal liberty interest arises from state parole scheme as amended | Held — no federal protected liberty interest in parole under Montana law |
| Procedural due process (hearing and reasons) | Newberry claims denial of process (muted mics, excluded discussions) | Newberry received opportunity to be heard and written reasons; he twice failed to attend; Swarthout limits required process to those elements | Held — due process requirements satisfied; these claims fail |
| Non-parole conditions (medical, COVID, transfers) included in pleadings | Newberry asserts prison conditions and medical needs claims in same action | These matters are unrelated to parole and not properly part of this parole-focused § 1983 action | Held — court will not entertain unrelated conditions claims here; dismissed without leave to amend |
Key Cases Cited
- Engquist v. Oregon Dep’t of Agriculture, 553 U.S. 591 (2008) (limits on class-of-one equal protection claims in government employment contexts)
- Gerhart v. Lake County, 637 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying Engquist and explaining class-of-one constraints)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (no constitutional right to parole before sentence expiration)
- Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987) (discussing state-law parole presumptions prior to statutory amendment)
- Worden v. Mahoney, 962 P.2d 1157 (Mont. 1998) (Montana parole statutory history and effect of 1989 amendment)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011) (due process for parole limited to opportunity to be heard and statement of reasons)