Void v. Smoot
218 F. Supp. 3d 101
| D.D.C. | 2016Background
- Plaintiff Bruce E. Void was convicted of first-degree murder while armed (20 years to life) and related offenses; became parole-eligible under D.C. parole scheme and the US Parole Commission (USPC) applied the 1987 Regulations (salient factor score/Grid).
- Under the 1987 Regulations, a low total point score presumptively supports parole, but the USPC may depart upward in "unusual circumstances" and must state reasons in writing.
- At his initial hearing plaintiff’s total point score was 1 (presumptively parole-eligible), but the hearing examiner and the USPC departed upward, denying parole and scheduling a rehearing sooner than grant because they found him a greater risk based on violent criminal history and other record evidence.
- At rehearing the USPC again denied parole and imposed a 60-month continuance, citing new appellate and presentence information linking plaintiff to additional violent offenses (including evidence connecting the same .45 caliber weapon to subsequent murders).
- Plaintiff sued, alleging (1) Ex Post Facto violation (retroactive guideline application), (2) "double counting" (using the same factors twice), and (3) denial of due process/arbitrary and capricious decision for relying on out-of-record information. Defendants moved to dismiss.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ex Post Facto | Void alleges USPC applied guidelines/practices retroactively to increase punishment | Defs: plaintiff fails to plead retroactive application of different/ harsher guidelines; USPC used 1987 Regulations | Court: Dismissed — no plausible ex post facto claim; USPC applied the 1987 rules plaintiff sought to be applied |
| Double counting | It is impermissible to deny parole based on the same factors used to compute the SFS/Grid | Defs: departure relied on the nature/seriousness of criminal conduct and new evidence beyond SFS particulars | Court: Dismissed — departure was permissible; consideration of conduct and risk beyond SFS is allowed |
| Due Process / arbitrary & capricious | USPC relied on information not in the record and reached an irrational decision | Defs: USPC provided reasons and relied on permissible materials (presentence, appellate brief, other evidence) to assess risk | Court: Dismissed — minimal parole procedures satisfied; decision not so irrational or unsupported to violate due process |
| Remedy / jurisdictional relief | Plaintiff sought injunction/release and damages (later withdrawn) asserting wrongful denial | Defs: sovereign immunity and habeas are defenses (not resolved because plaintiff withdrew claims) | Court: Dismissed plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim; remedies not reached on merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244 (rule that retroactive parole-rule changes violate Ex Post Facto if they create a significant risk of prolonging incarceration)
- Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (parole context requires minimal procedures: opportunity to be heard and statement of reasons)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (parole statutes require only minimal procedural protections)
- Bailey v. Fulwood, 793 F.3d 127 (USPC need not strictly apply guidelines; must assess compatibility with welfare of society under D.C. law)
- Phillips v. Fulwood, 616 F.3d 577 (discussion of the 1987 Regulations and USPC application to D.C. Code offenders)