« Federal court rules Second Amendment precludes denial of gun permit based on multiple arrests and dozens of traffic violation and license suspensions | Main | "Original Understanding, Punishment, and Collateral Consequences" »
October 29, 2023
Fifth Circuit panel finds protected liberty interest for Louisiana prisoner seeking parole reinstatement
A helpful commenter flagged a notable new panel ruling from the Fifth Circuit handed down last week. Though the factual particulars are complicated and critical in Galbraith v. Hooper, No. 22-30159 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2023) (available here), folks who litigate over parole or other back-end procedures in the criminal justice system may find a lot of aspects of the opinion interesting and important. Here is how the 24-page opinion begins and ends:
Samuel Galbraith, a Louisiana prisoner, sued the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Parole (“Parole Board”), seeking to have his parole reinstated on the grounds that its rescission just prior to its effective date violated his due process rights. The district court agreed with Galbraith and ordered his release on parole within 30 days, subject to the original conditions of his parole. On appeal, the Parole Board’s arguments include that there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole. Based on Louisiana’s parole statutes, we hold that, on the facts of this case, a liberty interest did arise. We AFFIRM....
[Quoting magistrate's ruling: "]While it is true that Louisiana’s parole statutes do not create a liberty interest in the granting of parole, once parole has been granted, the Parole Board’s discretion to rescind that parole was statutorily limited to an objective, fact-based finding that Petitioner had either: (1) violated the terms of his work release, or (2) engaged in misconduct. Neither statutory basis was even argued, much less established in April 2017. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Petitioner was entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before rescinding his parole, which did not occur.["]
Galbraith’s parole was ostensibly rescinded because of an alleged problem with notice to a victim. He was notified of this reason on May 1, 2017, 10 days after his parole was rescinded. At the time, that was not a permissible reason to rescind his grant of parole.
Therefore, Galbraith’s parole was improperly rescinded.
October 29, 2023 at 01:34 PM | Permalink
Comments
The words "arbitrary and capricious" do come to mind about the way the Parole Board treated this man! Just no basic fairness or decency to the defendant/ parolee. The Fifth Circuit is doing justice.
Posted by: Jim Gormley | Oct 29, 2023 2:02:34 PM
I don't know if it is "justice" in the sense that this was the right decision from a cosmic standpoint, but this result is dictated by law, and kudos to the Fifth Circuit for getting it right.
Posted by: federalist | Oct 30, 2023 9:54:24 AM
Doug, what are your thoughts on the opinion? The opinion to me seemed overdone. This should be an easy case. He was granted parole, and he was then eligible. It can't just be revoked.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 1, 2023 10:33:14 AM
What I don't understand, Doug, is how the state got legal advice that this was ok, and more importantly, why did the state think that it was ok to risk this guy's liberty? Would I have granted the guy parole, prob not, but that doesn't mean that once he got it, that it gets to be revoked arbitrarily.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 1, 2023 10:35:47 AM
Why do you think the state got legal advice to support the parole rescission, federalist? Seems like some member(s) of the board feared political scrutiny and decided on their own to rescind parole. Meanwhile, it seems that Louisiana Administrative Code provides grounds for rescinding parole once it had been granted, but only on specified grounds. Parole board members might not have known (or cared to know) that the power to rescind parole was limited by law.
Since all sort of government officials have all sorts of unregulated discretion in the criminal justice system, I would not be surprised if the parole officials genuinely believed their discretion to rescind was unfettered. Fortunately, the Fifth Circuit actually got to the merits to correct this mistake, albeit many years later.
Posted by: Doug B | Nov 1, 2023 2:36:11 PM
The parole board members should be forced to resign in disgrace.
Posted by: federalist | Nov 2, 2023 9:37:55 AM
