Whiteside v. Arkansas Parole Board
492 S.W.3d 489
Ark.2016Background
- Appellant Shawn Whiteside, an ADC inmate, petitioned the Lincoln County Circuit Court for judicial review of an Arkansas Parole Board decision denying transfer to the Department of Community Correction (DCC).
- Whiteside attached a Record of Release Consideration showing a May 24, 2015 hearing, deferral of transfer, and denial of his request for reconsideration; the deferral required completion of the RSVP program.
- The circuit court dismissed Whiteside’s petition for failure to state a claim and counted it as a strike under Ark. Code § 16-68-607, finding Ark. Code § 25-15-212(a) (the APA) bars inmate suits unless a liberty-interest/due-process issue is raised.
- Whiteside argued Ark. Code § 16-93-615 creates a mandatory, nondiscretionary transfer right for inmates meeting statutory criteria, thus creating a liberty interest that allows judicial review.
- The court assumed, arguendo, that the statute could create a liberty interest but held Whiteside failed to plead facts showing he met the statute’s qualifying criteria for mandatory transfer.
- The majority affirmed dismissal; Justice Hart dissented, arguing the court should have first determined whether the circuit court had jurisdiction to hear the parole-board appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the APA bars an inmate from judicial review absent a liberty-interest claim | Whiteside: § 16-93-615 creates a statutory liberty interest in mandatory transfer, so APA’s inmate exclusion cannot bar review of his constitutional claim | State: APA excludes inmates from review; absent a demonstrated liberty interest, court lacks basis to review Parole Board action | Court: APA generally bars inmate review; exception only if petition raises a liberty-interest constitutional question |
| Whether § 16-93-615 creates a mandatory, nondiscretionary transfer right giving rise to a liberty interest | Whiteside: Statute limits ADC/Board discretion and requires transfer for qualifying inmates, creating a liberty interest | State: Board retains statutory alternatives (defer and prescribe program), and Whiteside did not show he met qualifying criteria | Court: Even assuming statute can create a liberty interest, Whiteside failed to allege facts placing him within the qualifying class for mandatory transfer |
| Whether the petition stated sufficient facts to trigger due-process review | Whiteside: Attached Board record shows denial/reconsideration denial and alleges statutory entitlement | State: Record shows Board deferred transfer and prescribed RSVP; Whiteside didn’t allege he satisfied statutory prerequisites | Court: Petition did not state facts to raise a constitutional question; dismissal proper |
| Whether dismissal should be counted as a strike under § 16-68-607 | Whiteside: Implicit challenge to treatment as a strike | State/Court: Petition failed to state a claim; court properly counted it as a strike | Court: Affirmed dismissal and strike designation |
Key Cases Cited
- Clinton v. Bonds, 306 Ark. 554, 816 S.W.2d 169 (1991) (APA unconstitutional to the extent it deprives inmates of review of constitutional questions)
- Carroll v. Hobbs, 442 S.W.3d 834 (Ark. 2014) (no liberty interest in parole)
- Arnold v. State, 384 S.W.3d 488 (Ark. 2011) (not every statute creates a due-process liberty interest)
- Bramlett v. Hobbs, 463 S.W.3d 283 (Ark. 2015) (parole eligibility governed by law at time of offense)
- Boles v. Huckabee, 12 S.W.3d 201 (Ark. 2000) (parole and executive-branch domain)