Case: Hayden v. Keller

5:10-ct-03123 | U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

Filed Date: July 15, 2010

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

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 h…

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)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6365386/parties/hayden-v-keller/


Judge(s)

Boyle, Terrence William (North Carolina)

Johnston, Thomas E. (West Virginia)

Niemeyer, Paul Victor (Maryland)

Wynn, James Andrew Jr. (North Carolina)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Finholt, Benjamin S. (North Carolina)

Pollard, Mary Sheehan (North Carolina)

Simpson, Elizabeth Guild (North Carolina)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Cooper, Roy (North Carolina)

Dismukes, Leslie Cooley (North Carolina)

Finarelli, Joseph (North Carolina)

Judge(s)

Boyle, Terrence William (North Carolina)

Johnston, Thomas E. (West Virginia)

Niemeyer, Paul Victor (Maryland)

Wynn, James Andrew Jr. (North Carolina)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Finholt, Benjamin S. (North Carolina)

Pollard, Mary Sheehan (North Carolina)

Simpson, Elizabeth Guild (North Carolina)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Cooper, Roy (North Carolina)

Dismukes, Leslie Cooley (North Carolina)

Finarelli, Joseph (North Carolina)

Harrison, Jodi (North Carolina)

Liguori, Michelle A. (North Carolina)

Other Attorney(s)

Mills, John Robert (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

5:10-ct-03123

Docket [PACER]

Jan. 22, 2019

Jan. 22, 2019

Docket
83

5:10-ct-03123

Defendant's Proposed Plan in Response to 25 September 2016 Order

Hayden v. Butler

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

Pleading / Motion / Brief
1

5:10-ct-03123

Original Complaint

Hayden v. Keller et al

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

Complaint
7

5:10-ct-03123

Order to Dismiss

March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

Order/Opinion
10

5:10-ct-02272

First Amended Complaint

Hayden v. Butler

Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

Complaint
9

5:10-ct-03123

Order to Reopen

Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

Order/Opinion
58

5:10-ct-03123

Order

134 F.Supp.3d 1000

Sept. 25, 2015

Sept. 25, 2015

Order/Opinion
69

15-07676

Appeal from U.S. District Court for E.D.N.C.

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

667 Fed.Appx. 416, 2016 WL 4073275

Aug. 1, 2016

Aug. 1, 2016

Order/Opinion
96

5:10-ct-03123

Order

Nov. 2, 2017

Nov. 2, 2017

Order/Opinion
25

5:10-ct-03123

17-07582

Order

Hayden v. Fowler

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

March 22, 2018

March 22, 2018

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6365386/hayden-v-keller/

Last updated Aug. 2, 2022, 3:22 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

Complaint

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

PACER
1

Complaint

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

PACER
1

Complaint

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

PACER
2

Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

PACER
2

Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

PACER
2

Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

PACER
3

Order Directing Prisoner Payment

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

PACER
3

Order Directing Prisoner Payment

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

PACER
3

Order Directing Prisoner Payment

July 15, 2010

July 15, 2010

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Nov. 19, 2010

Nov. 19, 2010

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Nov. 19, 2010

Nov. 19, 2010

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Nov. 19, 2010

Nov. 19, 2010

PACER

Filing Fee Received

March 17, 2011

March 17, 2011

PACER

Filing Fee Received

March 17, 2011

March 17, 2011

PACER

Filing Fee Received

March 17, 2011

March 17, 2011

PACER
4

Order

April 13, 2011

April 13, 2011

PACER
4

Order

April 13, 2011

April 13, 2011

PACER
4

Order

April 13, 2011

April 13, 2011

PACER
5

Response

May 3, 2011

May 3, 2011

PACER
5

Response

May 3, 2011

May 3, 2011

PACER
5

Response

May 3, 2011

May 3, 2011

PACER

Filing Fee Received

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER

Filing Fee Received

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER

Filing Fee Received

May 16, 2011

May 16, 2011

PACER

Filing Fee Received

July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

PACER

Filing Fee Received

July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

PACER

Filing Fee Received

July 22, 2011

July 22, 2011

PACER
6

Notice of Change of Address

July 27, 2011

July 27, 2011

PACER
6

Notice of Change of Address

July 27, 2011

July 27, 2011

PACER
6

Notice of Change of Address

July 27, 2011

July 27, 2011

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Nov. 2, 2011

Nov. 2, 2011

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Nov. 2, 2011

Nov. 2, 2011

PACER

Filing Fee Received

Nov. 2, 2011

Nov. 2, 2011

PACER
7

Order

March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

PACER
7

Order

March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

PACER
7

Order

March 12, 2012

March 12, 2012

PACER
8

Clerk's Judgment

March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

PACER
8

Clerk's Judgment

March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

PACER
8

Clerk's Judgment

March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

PACER
9

Order

Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

PACER
9

Order

Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

PACER
9

Order

Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

PACER
10

Amended Complaint

Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

PACER
10

Amended Complaint

Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

PACER
10

Amended Complaint

Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

PACER
11

Summons Issued

Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

PACER
11

Summons Issued

Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

PACER
11

Summons Issued

Sept. 11, 2013

Sept. 11, 2013

PACER
12

Affidavit of Service

Sept. 16, 2013

Sept. 16, 2013

PACER
12

Affidavit of Service

Sept. 16, 2013

Sept. 16, 2013

PACER
12

Affidavit of Service

Sept. 16, 2013

Sept. 16, 2013

PACER
13

Notice of Appearance

Sept. 16, 2013

Sept. 16, 2013

PACER
13

Notice of Appearance

Sept. 16, 2013

Sept. 16, 2013

PACER
13

Notice of Appearance

Sept. 16, 2013

Sept. 16, 2013

PACER
14

Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer

Oct. 3, 2013

Oct. 3, 2013

PACER
14

Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer

Oct. 3, 2013

Oct. 3, 2013

PACER
14

Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer

Oct. 3, 2013

Oct. 3, 2013

PACER
15

Response

Oct. 9, 2013

Oct. 9, 2013

PACER
15

Response

Oct. 9, 2013

Oct. 9, 2013

PACER
15

Response

Oct. 9, 2013

Oct. 9, 2013

PACER
16

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

Oct. 15, 2013

Oct. 15, 2013

PACER
16

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

Oct. 15, 2013

Oct. 15, 2013

PACER
16

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

Oct. 15, 2013

Oct. 15, 2013

PACER
17

Answer to Amended Complaint

Nov. 4, 2013

Nov. 4, 2013

PACER
17

Answer to Amended Complaint

Nov. 4, 2013

Nov. 4, 2013

PACER
17

Answer to Amended Complaint

Nov. 4, 2013

Nov. 4, 2013

PACER
18

Rule 26(f) Report (joint)

Nov. 21, 2013

Nov. 21, 2013

PACER
18

Rule 26(f) Report (joint)

Nov. 21, 2013

Nov. 21, 2013

PACER
18

Rule 26(f) Report (joint)

Nov. 21, 2013

Nov. 21, 2013

PACER
19

Request for Discovery Stipulation

April 3, 2014

April 3, 2014

PACER
19

Request for Discovery Stipulation

April 3, 2014

April 3, 2014

PACER
19

Request for Discovery Stipulation

April 3, 2014

April 3, 2014

PACER

Notice of Deficiency

April 9, 2014

April 9, 2014

PACER

Notice of Deficiency

April 9, 2014

April 9, 2014

PACER

Notice of Deficiency

April 9, 2014

April 9, 2014

PACER
20

Motion to Compel

April 9, 2014

April 9, 2014

PACER
20

Motion to Compel

April 9, 2014

April 9, 2014

PACER
20

Motion to Compel

April 9, 2014

April 9, 2014

PACER
21

Memorandum in Support

April 9, 2014

April 9, 2014

PACER
21

Memorandum in Support

April 9, 2014

April 9, 2014

PACER
21

Memorandum in Support

April 9, 2014

April 9, 2014

PACER

Motion Submitted

May 7, 2014

May 7, 2014

PACER

Motion Submitted

May 7, 2014

May 7, 2014

PACER

Motion Submitted

May 7, 2014

May 7, 2014

PACER

Motion Referred

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER

Motion Referred

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER

Motion Referred

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER

Notice of Deficiency

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER

Notice of Deficiency

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER

Notice of Deficiency

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER
22

Notice - other

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER
22

Notice - other

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER
22

Notice - other

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER
23

Withdrawal of Motion

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER
23

Withdrawal of Motion

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER
23

Withdrawal of Motion

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER
24

Stipulation of Discovery

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER
24

Stipulation of Discovery

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER
24

Stipulation of Discovery

May 8, 2014

May 8, 2014

PACER
25

Scheduling Order

May 20, 2014

May 20, 2014

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: North Carolina

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

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):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Legal Services/Legal Aid

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):

Corrections

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Habeas Corpus, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2253; 2254; 2255

Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201

Constitutional Clause(s):

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: 6200

Order Duration: 2017 - None

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Discrimination Prohibition

Implement complaint/dispute resolution process

Required disclosure

Issues

General:

Habeas Corpus

Juveniles

Pattern or Practice

Rehabilitation