Ruiz v. Felts
2017 Ark. 85
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Casey L. Ruiz, an ADC inmate convicted of burglary (2009), petitioned the Pulaski County Circuit Court for judicial review of the Arkansas Parole Board’s denial of parole and sought in forma pauperis status.
- Ruiz alleged the Board retroactively applied the 2011 parole-eligibility statute (A.C.A. §16-93-615), extending his incarceration by two years compared to the pre-2011 statute (A.C.A. §16-93-1302), raising an ex post facto challenge.
- The circuit court denied Ruiz’s in forma pauperis petition under Ark. R. Civ. P. 72, finding he had not stated a colorable claim.
- The record before the Supreme Court was incomplete: Board documents showing a November 5, 2015 denial (citing prior release history) and a two-year rehearing period, but lacking judgment of conviction, offense details, sentencing, and documentation of Ruiz’s prior release/absconding.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether Ruiz alleged sufficient nonconclusory facts to state a colorable claim for (1) a due-process right to parole and (2) an ex post facto violation from retroactive application of the 2011 statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether denial of parole implicates a due-process liberty interest | Ruiz: denial deprived him of liberty without due process. | Parole Board: Arkansas statutes create no constitutional right to parole. | Court: No liberty interest in parole; due-process claim fails. |
| Whether retroactive application of the 2011 parole statute violates the Ex Post Facto Clause | Ruiz: applying §16-93-615 retroactively increased his punishment and delayed parole eligibility by two years. | Board: retroactive application was appropriate (argued implicitly via denial; record sparse). | Court: Ruiz alleged sufficient nonconclusory facts to state a colorable ex post facto claim; entitlement to judicial review and pauper status reversed and remanded for full record review. |
| Whether petitioner stated a "colorable cause of action" to proceed in forma pauperis under Ark. R. Civ. P. 72 | Ruiz: factual allegations about conviction date, statutory change, and two-year extension suffice. | Circuit court: allegations insufficient; denied pauper status. | Court: On due-process claim, allegations insufficient; on ex post facto claim, allegations sufficient — in forma pauperis should be granted for ex post facto review. |
| Whether the deficient record prevents resolution of the ex post facto claim on the existing papers | Ruiz: alleged facts require full agency record for analysis. | Board: (implicit) rely on available documents showing denial and rationale. | Court: Existing record is inadequate; remanded for transmission of full record for constitutional analysis. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ballard Group, Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc., 2014 Ark. 276 (pleadings must allege facts, not conclusions, to obtain relief)
- Boles v. Huckabee, 340 Ark. 410 (definition of a colorable cause of action)
- Clinton v. Bonds, 306 Ark. 554 (courts generally defer to prison administration but review credible constitutional claims)
- Cridge v. Hobbs, 2014 Ark. 153 (no constitutional right or entitlement to parole invoking due-process protection)
- Holloway v. Beebe, 2013 Ark. 12 (analysis of whether statute is punitive for ex post facto purposes)
- Bosnick v. Lockhart, 283 Ark. 206 (retroactive application of less-favorable parole law violates ex post facto clause)
- Bowen v. State, 322 Ark. 483 (change in law must affect substantial personal rights to trigger ex post facto prohibition)
- Kellar v. Fayetteville Police Department, 339 Ark. 274 (ex post facto clause may apply to administrative statutes when retroactivity constitutes punishment)
- Pitts v. Hobbs, 2013 Ark. 457 (elements required for ex post facto analysis)
- Brown v. Lockhart, 288 Ark. 483 (ex post facto principles and Arkansas precedent)