Veronza L. Bowers, Jr. v. United States Parole Commission, Warden, 2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 13055

Background

Veronza Bowers, serving life for a 1973 murder, was granted mandatory parole in May 2005, then the Parole Commission reopened and ultimately denied parole after Commissioner Spagnoli sent a partisan memorandum and the Attorney General requested reconsideration.
This Court (Bowers v. Keller) vacated the June 14, 2005 reopening decision because Spagnoli’s unauthorized advocacy tainted the Commission, and directed the district court to return the case to the Commission as of May 17, 2005 and to grant relief unless the Commission acted within 60 days.
On remand the Parole Commission reviewed the record early, re-voted in December 2011, and again denied mandatory parole based largely on a 1979 escape attempt. Bowers exhausted administrative remedies and sought discovery and leave to amend his habeas petition alleging (among other things) post-2005 political pressure and procedural/mandate violations.
The district court denied discovery and leave to amend, reasoning the Keller mandate did not authorize further discovery and that prior appellate disposition foreclosed political-pressure claims.
The Eleventh Circuit held the district court abused its discretion: the mandate did not preclude discovery into post-October 2005 political pressure or bar amendment; discovery and leave to amend should be allowed narrowly as to post-October-2005 political-influence allegations.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether district court erred by denying discovery into alleged political pressure on the Parole Commission after Oct. 2005	Bowers: unique history of bias and suspicious timing of 2011 re-vote justify discovery into post-2005 political influence	Government/District Court: Keller mandate and prior appellate rulings foreclose further discovery or relitigation of political-pressure claims	Court: District court abused its discretion; grant discovery limited to post-October-2005 political-pressure matters
Whether district court abused discretion by denying leave to amend the habeas petition	Bowers: new factual allegations about 2011 re-vote and post-2005 pressure warrant amendment	District court: petition already long/complicated and mandate scope limits new claims	Court: Abuse of discretion; leave to amend should be allowed absent substantial reason to deny
Whether the Keller mandate foreclosed all further review of Commission bias or political influence	Government: Keller affirmed denial of relief on political-pressure claim and found no evidence current Commission would be biased; thus law-of-the-case bars relitigation	Bowers: mandate ensured impartial proceedings but did not preclude discovery into subsequent events that could show new bias or pressure	Court: Law of the case precludes relitigation of pre-October-2005 matters, but does not bar inquiry into events outside prior appeal (post-October-2005)
Whether discovery may probe Commissioner Spagnoli’s past influence on current commissioners	Bowers: current Commission could be tainted by documents/Spagnoli’s actions	Government/District Court: speculation; no evidence current commissioners biased by Spagnoli’s documents	Court: Denied; speculation insufficient — no discovery into purging/Spagnoli’s past bias vis-à-vis current commissioners

Key Cases Cited

Bowers v. Keller, 651 F.3d 1277 (11th Cir. 2011) (prior opinion finding Spagnoli tainted the Commission and issuing the mandate)
Bracy v. Gramley, 520 U.S. 899 (1997) (habeas discovery is discretionary and requires good cause)
Arthur v. Allen, 459 F.3d 1310 (11th Cir. 2006) (standard for habeas discovery—good cause where specific allegations show facts could entitle petitioner to relief)
Transamerica Leasing, Inc. v. Institute of London Underwriters, 430 F.3d 1326 (11th Cir. 2005) (law-of-the-case doctrine does not apply to issues outside prior appeal)
Klay v. United Healthgroup, Inc., 376 F.3d 1092 (11th Cir. 2004) (district court may abuse discretion by applying law incorrectly)