Filed Date: July 15, 2010
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
On July 15, 2010 An inmate serving a life sentence for crimes committed as a juvenile filed this lawsuit on behalf of himself against the North Carolina Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission ("the Parole Commission") in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. The case was assigned to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. The initial complaint was unclear, and Judge Boyle ordered the plaintiff to clarify whether the case should proceed as a petition for writ of habeas corpus. The original case, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, was dismissed without prejudice, and the case was to be continued under habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
The court directed that North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services (NCPLS) represent the plaintiff. The plaintiff then filed an amended complaint against the Parole Commission under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff had become eligible for parole in 2002, after serving a term of twenty years, and alleged that the defendant failed to offer him a meaningful opportunity for parole in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. He sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
On Sept. 11, 2013, Judge Boyle authorized the filing of this complaint and dismissed the habeas corpus petition.
On Nov. 3, 2014, the defendant and the plaintiff both moved for summary judgment. On Sept. 25, 2015, in a written opinion, Judge Boyle denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment and granted in part and denied without prejudice in part the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the parole review process employed by the Parole Commission for offenders convicted as juveniles and serving life sentences violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution.
Judge Boyle cited the Supreme Court's decision in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), which addressed the issue of parole for juvenile offenders sentenced to life imprisonment. In a 6-3 opinion by Justice Kennedy, the Court had held that, when juveniles are sentenced to life imprisonment, the Constitution requires that they be granted a meaningful opportunity for parole so that they may have the chance to demonstrate their increased maturity and rehabilitation.
On Oct. 21, 2015, the defendant filed an interlocutory appeal of the Sept. 25, 2015, order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the district court entered a stay pending the Fourth Circuit's resolution of the appeal. The Fourth Circuit dismissed the appeal on the grounds that the court's order was not a final order.
The district court then lifted the stay and ordered that the parties had sixty days to present a "plan for the means and mechanism of compliance with the mandates of Graham to provide a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation to juvenile offenders convicted as adults." Hayden v. Keller, 134 F.Supp.3d 1000, 1011 (E.D.N.C. 2015).
The parties did not reach agreement on a plan, and on Oct. 24, 2016, each party filed its respective proposed plans.
Meanwhile, another inmate serving a life sentence with parole for an offense committed as a juvenile in the North Carolina prison system had moved to intervene as a plaintiff, but his motion was denied on July 5, 2017.
On Nov. 2, 2017, the court granted the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and adopted the defendant's proposed plan. The plan proposed a number of new hearing and pre- and post-hearing procedures, including (i) providing the eligible offenders with written notice at least 180 days in advance of any parole review hearing; (ii) a guaranteed 30-minute meeting slot for the offender's family members, advocates, attorneys, or other witnesses, to address one or more members of the Parole Commission in person; (iii) permitting the eligible offender to submit a written personal explanation of the circumstances of the underlying offense, or any other materials documenting his or her maturity, rehabilitation, and suitability for parole; and (iv) permitting the eligible offender to appear via videoconference before the commissioner(s) during the review hearing, among other changes. The court directed the defendant to implement its proposed plan within ninety days.
On December 1, 2017, the defendant appealed the following judgments to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit: the order granting the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the order granting the plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief. (Appeal case number 17-7582). On the same day, the defendant filed a motion to stay proceedings pending appeal.
On Jan. 8, 2018, the plaintiff's motion to stay ruling on his motion for costs, attorneys' fees, and related expenses was granted. The defendant's motion to stay the proceedings was denied, and the court gave the defendant until Mar. 30, 2018, to implement the proposed plan. The clerk was also directed to substitute Willis J. Fowler as a defendant in place of Paul Butler, Jr.
On March 12, the plaintiff and the defendant jointly filed a motion to extend the deadline for the defendant to comply with the injunction for 120 days, until July 28, 2018. On March 19, this motion was granted, and Judge Boyle directed the defendant to implement the proposed plan by July 28, 2018. In addition, the court ordered the defendant to give juvenile offenders whose parole review is scheduled before July 28, 2018, the option to (1) go forward with their parole review as scheduled under the old procedures, (2) reschedule their parole review to a time when the new procedures are in effect, or (3) to proceed twice: once as scheduled under the old procedures and again after the new procedures go into effect.
On March 22, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered that the case dismissed upon voluntary dismissal.
Back to the District Court, on January 17, 2019, the parties filed a consent motion for attorneys’ fees and related expenses. On January 22, Judge Boyle granted the consent motion and awarded costs in the amount of $62,000 to plaintiff’s attorneys. The case is now closed.
Summary Authors
Gloria Han (2/14/2017)
Elizabeth Greiter (1/19/2018)
Sichun Liu (1/18/2020)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6365386/parties/hayden-v-keller/
Boyle, Terrence William (North Carolina)
Johnston, Thomas E. (West Virginia)
Niemeyer, Paul Victor (Maryland)
Wynn, James Andrew Jr. (North Carolina)
Finholt, Benjamin S. (North Carolina)
Pollard, Mary Sheehan (North Carolina)
Simpson, Elizabeth Guild (North Carolina)
Cooper, Roy (North Carolina)
Dismukes, Leslie Cooley (North Carolina)
Finarelli, Joseph (North Carolina)
Boyle, Terrence William (North Carolina)
Johnston, Thomas E. (West Virginia)
Niemeyer, Paul Victor (Maryland)
Wynn, James Andrew Jr. (North Carolina)
Finholt, Benjamin S. (North Carolina)
Pollard, Mary Sheehan (North Carolina)
Simpson, Elizabeth Guild (North Carolina)
Cooper, Roy (North Carolina)
Dismukes, Leslie Cooley (North Carolina)
Finarelli, Joseph (North Carolina)
Harrison, Jodi (North Carolina)
Liguori, Michelle A. (North Carolina)
Mills, John Robert (California)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6365386/hayden-v-keller/
Last updated May 20, 2022, 4:21 a.m.
State / Territory: North Carolina
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 15, 2010
Closing Date: 2020
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
An inmate serving a life sentence in North Carolina for crimes committed when he was a juvenile.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: Yes
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
North Carolina Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission (Raleigh, Wake), State
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Availably Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Amount Defendant Pays: 6200
Order Duration: 2017 - None
Content of Injunction:
Develop anti-discrimination policy
Implement complaint/dispute resolution process
Issues
General: