Case: Gasca v. Precythe

2:17-cv-04149 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri

Filed Date: Aug. 14, 2017

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

Parolees in custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) filed this class-action lawsuit against MDOC on August 14, 2017. They alleged that MDOC was failing to educate parolees about their right to a hearing; failing to screen parolees to determine whether they qualified for a court-appointed attorney; and failing to provide other procedural rights during the parole revocation process. The plaintiffs, alleging that these failures amounted to a violation of the Due Process Clause of …

Parolees in custody of the Missouri Department of Corrections (MDOC) filed this class-action lawsuit against MDOC on August 14, 2017. They alleged that MDOC was failing to educate parolees about their right to a hearing; failing to screen parolees to determine whether they qualified for a court-appointed attorney; and failing to provide other procedural rights during the parole revocation process. The plaintiffs, alleging that these failures amounted to a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. Represented by the MacArthur Justice Center, they sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Stephen R. Bough.

The lead plaintiff was eight months pregnant when parole officers arrested her for leaving her residential drug rehab program early. Her parole officer led her to believe that it was in her best interest to voluntarily waive her rights to all formal hearings, as a condition for early release. She was not informed of her right to an attorney when she signed a form waiving her final revocation hearing, and she believed that if she signed the waiver she would be released in time to deliver her baby outside of jail. Instead, she was sent to prison, where she remained until five months after her baby was born.

On September 18, 2017, the plaintiffs sought class certification of all parolees that faced or would face parole revocation hearings in Missouri. They filed an amended complaint on October 12, 2017.

MDOC moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 26, 2017, claiming:

  • that the plaintiffs’ claims were speculative;
  • that MDOC had no authority to provide counsel for parolees;
  • that all claims were barred by judicial immunity;
  • that parole board orders could be directly reviewed, and that judicial review was therefore inappropriate;
  • that the Younger doctrine required the federal court to refrain from interfering with pending state judicial proceedings; and
  • that the Eleventh Amendment and quasi-judicial immunity protected MDOC from damages claims.
On December 5, 2017, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion to certify a class, holding that they had not met the commonality and typicality requirements for class certification. On December 15, 2017, the court denied MDOC’s motion to dismiss.

The plaintiffs filed another motion for class certification on November 27, 2018; this motion was granted on January 4, 2019, defining the certified class as “All adult parolees in the state of Missouri who currently face, or who in the future will face, parole revocation proceedings.”

Although the court had initially set a trial date for the spring of 2019, in December 2018 it instead ordered the case to mediation. Shortly after this order, the plaintiffs moved for summary judgment on December 27, 2018. They claimed that the undisputed facts demonstrated that MDOC was not providing counsel as required by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, and that MDOC had failed to meet other minimal due process requirements set forth in prior Supreme Court rulings.

In January 2019, the parties participated in mediation. MDOC admitted that its policies had not been in compliance with Gagnon v. Scarpelli at the time the plaintiffs filed their complaint; however, the Department had since taken corrective measures to remedy these shortcomings. MDOC requested a delayed ruling on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, to allow further progress toward a settlement agreement. The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on February 27, 2019; it is unclear whether a formal settlement agreement had been reached, or what type of remedy had been provided for class members.

On May 15, 2019, a parolee moved pro se to join the class action and to proceed separately, in order to receive individual relief; the court granted this request on May 30, 2019. On November 1, 2019 MDOC sought to dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. The court denied this motion on December 19, 2019. The court stated, among other things, that “Defendants have failed to meet their heavy burden to establish it is ‘absolutely clear’ that Defendants’ current revised policies, procedures, and forms pass constitutional muster.”

In April 2020, the plaintiffs filed a motion for emergency relief in light of the COVID-19 pandemic, requesting that the court issue a writ ordering MDOC to cease parole revocation proceedings. On April 15, 2020, the court held that such a write would “be beyond the scope of this case.”

On August 5, 2020, the court denied MDOC’s motion to decertify the class. This case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Kimberly Goshey (6/11/2019)

Bogyung Lim (8/10/2020)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6370150/parties/gasca-v-precythe/


Judge(s)

Bough, Stephen Rogers (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bedi, Sheila A. (Illinois)

Bowman, Locke E. III (Illinois)

Breihan, Amy Elizabeth (Missouri)

Crane, Megan G (Missouri)

Mobley, William P (Missouri)

Quinn, Mae C. (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Elsbury, Laura E. (Missouri)

Gonzalez, Anthony (Missouri)

Hawke, Stephen David (Missouri)

Judge(s)

Bough, Stephen Rogers (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Bedi, Sheila A. (Illinois)

Bowman, Locke E. III (Illinois)

Breihan, Amy Elizabeth (Missouri)

Crane, Megan G (Missouri)

Mobley, William P (Missouri)

Quinn, Mae C. (Missouri)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Elsbury, Laura E. (Missouri)

Gonzalez, Anthony (Missouri)

Hawke, Stephen David (Missouri)

Kimminau, Matthew G (Missouri)

Moore, Justin (Missouri)

Morgan, Jeremiah J. (Missouri)

Pritchett, Michael (Missouri)

Quinlan, Michael D. (Missouri)

Shull, Doug (Missouri)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket [PACER]

Aug. 5, 2020 Docket
1

Class Action Complaint

Aug. 14, 2017 Complaint
23

Amended Class Action Complaint

Oct. 12, 2017 Complaint
42

Order

Dec. 5, 2017 Order/Opinion
50

Order

Dec. 15, 2017 Order/Opinion
132

Order

2019 WL 112789

Jan. 4, 2019 Order/Opinion
146

Order

Feb. 27, 2019 Order/Opinion
217

Order

Dec. 19, 2019 Order/Opinion
250

Plaintiffs' Emergency Motion for Relief Pursuant to All Writs Act

March 25, 2020 Pleading / Motion / Brief
261

Order

April 15, 2020 Order/Opinion

Resources

Title Description External URL

Gasca v. Precythe

MacArthur Justice Center

In Missouri, the Parole Board is running an assembly-line parole process that pushes people back into our prisons without any real legal protections. In many instances, alleged parole violators are t… Oct. 12, 2017 https://www.macarthurjustice.org/case/gasca-v-precythe-et-al/

Want to Shrink the Prison Population? Look at Parole.

Beth Schwartzapfel

Provides background facts for the Gasca v. Precythe case filed in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The article discusses the central issues of the class action and reviews pr… Feb. 11, 2019 https://www.themarshallproject.org/2019/02/11/want-to-shrink-the-prison-population-look-at-parole

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6370150/gasca-v-precythe/

Last updated May 20, 2022, 5:06 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
1

Complaint

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

2 Exhibit

View on PACER

3 Exhibit

View on PACER

4 Exhibit

View on PACER

5 Exhibit

View on PACER

6 Exhibit

View on PACER

7 Exhibit

View on PACER

8 Exhibit

View on PACER

9 Exhibit

View on PACER

10 Exhibit

View on PACER

11 Exhibit

View on PACER

12 Exhibit

View on PACER

13 Exhibit

View on PACER

14 Exhibit

View on PACER

15 Exhibit

View on PACER

16 Exhibit

View on PACER

17 Exhibit

View on PACER

18 Exhibit

View on PACER

19 Exhibit

View on PACER

20 Exhibit

View on PACER

21 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

Aug. 14, 2017 PACER

Summons Issued

Aug. 16, 2017 PACER

Summons Reissued

Aug. 28, 2017 PACER
2

Motion to Substitute Attorney

Aug. 31, 2017 PACER
3

Order on Motion to Substitute Attorney

Sept. 1, 2017 PACER
4

Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer

Sept. 5, 2017 PACER
5

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

Sept. 6, 2017 PACER
6

Motion to Certify Class

1 Supplement Suggestions in Support of Motion for Class Certification

View on PACER

Sept. 18, 2017 PACER
7

Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Sept. 27, 2017 PACER
8

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Sept. 28, 2017 PACER
9

Return of Service of Complaint Executed

Sept. 29, 2017 PACER
10

Return of Service of Complaint Executed

Sept. 29, 2017 PACER
11

Return of Service of Complaint Executed

Sept. 29, 2017 PACER
12

Return of Service of Complaint Executed

Sept. 29, 2017 PACER
13

Return of Service of Complaint Executed

Sept. 29, 2017 PACER
14

Return of Service of Complaint Executed

Sept. 29, 2017 PACER
15

Return of Service of Complaint Executed

Sept. 29, 2017 PACER
16

Return of Service of Complaint Executed

Sept. 29, 2017 PACER
17

Notice of Appearance

Oct. 2, 2017 PACER
18

Motion for Extension of Time to File Answer

Oct. 6, 2017 PACER
19

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to Answer

Oct. 6, 2017 PACER
20

Motion for Leave to File

Oct. 11, 2017 PACER
21

Suggestions in Support of Motion

1 Exhibit

View on PACER

2 Exhibit

View on PACER

3 Exhibit

View on PACER

4 Exhibit

View on PACER

5 Exhibit

View on PACER

6 Exhibit

View on PACER

7 Exhibit

View on PACER

8 Exhibit

View on PACER

9 Exhibit

View on PACER

10 Exhibit

View on PACER

11 Exhibit

View on PACER

12 Exhibit

View on PACER

13 Exhibit

View on PACER

14 Exhibit

View on PACER

15 Exhibit

View on PACER

16 Exhibit

View on PACER

17 Exhibit

View on PACER

18 Exhibit

View on PACER

19 Exhibit

View on PACER

20 Exhibit

View on PACER

21 Exhibit

View on PACER

22 Exhibit

View on PACER

23 Exhibit

View on PACER

Oct. 11, 2017 PACER
22

Order on Motion for Leave to File

Oct. 12, 2017 PACER
23

Amended Complaint

1 Exhibit 1

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3

View on PACER

4 Exhibit 4

View on PACER

5 Exhibit 5

View on PACER

6 Exhibit 6

View on PACER

7 Exhibit 7

View on PACER

8 Exhibit 8

View on PACER

9 Exhibit 9

View on PACER

10 Exhibit 10

View on PACER

11 Exhibit 11

View on PACER

12 Exhibit 12

View on PACER

13 Exhibit 13

View on PACER

14 Exhibit 14

View on PACER

15 Exhibit 15

View on PACER

16 Exhibit 16

View on PACER

17 Exhibit 17

View on PACER

18 Exhibit 18

View on PACER

19 Exhibit 19

View on PACER

20 Exhibit 20

View on PACER

21 Exhibit 21

View on PACER

22 Index 22

View on PACER

Oct. 12, 2017 PACER
24

Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Oct. 26, 2017 PACER
25

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

1 Exhibit Exhibit A

View on PACER

Oct. 26, 2017 PACER
26

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Oct. 26, 2017 PACER
27

Suggestions in Opposition to Motion

Nov. 1, 2017 PACER
28

Motion for Extension of Time

Nov. 9, 2017 PACER
29

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

Nov. 9, 2017 PACER
30

Motion for Extension of Time

Nov. 15, 2017 PACER
31

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

Nov. 15, 2017 PACER
32

Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

1 Exhibit Proposed Opposition to Motion to Dismiss

View on PACER

Nov. 15, 2017 PACER
33

Suggestions in Opposition to Motion

1 Exhibit Exhibit A

View on PACER

2 Exhibit Exhibit B

View on PACER

Nov. 15, 2017 PACER
34

Order on Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages

Nov. 16, 2017 PACER
35

Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Nov. 24, 2017 PACER
36

Order on Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply

Nov. 27, 2017 PACER
37

Motion for Extension of Time

Nov. 29, 2017 PACER
38

Reply Suggestions to Motion

Nov. 29, 2017 PACER
39

Order on Motion for Extension of Time

Nov. 30, 2017 PACER
40

Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

Nov. 30, 2017 PACER
41

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

Nov. 30, 2017 PACER
42

Order on Motion to Certify Class

Dec. 5, 2017 PACER
43

Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

Dec. 8, 2017 PACER
44

Order on Motion to Withdraw as Attorney

Dec. 8, 2017 PACER
45

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Dec. 8, 2017 PACER
46

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Dec. 8, 2017 PACER
47

Order on Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice

Dec. 11, 2017 PACER
48

Rule 16 Notice

Dec. 12, 2017 PACER
49

Reply Suggestions to Motion

Dec. 13, 2017 RECAP
50

Order on Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

Dec. 15, 2017 PACER
51

Answer to Amended Complaint

Dec. 29, 2017 PACER
52

CERTIFICATE of service of initial Rule 26 disclosures

Feb. 8, 2018 PACER
53

CERTIFICATE of service of initial Rule 26 disclosures

Feb. 8, 2018 PACER
54

Proposed Scheduling Order

Feb. 9, 2018 PACER
55

Order

Feb. 12, 2018 PACER
56

Motion for Leave to Appear

Feb. 20, 2018 PACER
57

Order on Motion for Leave to Appear

Feb. 20, 2018 PACER
58

Description not available

Feb. 21, 2018 PACER
59

RULES OF TRIAL

Feb. 23, 2018 PACER
60

Scheduling Order

Feb. 23, 2018 PACER
61

Certificate of Service

Feb. 26, 2018 PACER
62

Notice of Appearance

March 6, 2018 PACER
63

Notice of Appearance

March 7, 2018 PACER
64

Certificate of Service

March 28, 2018 PACER
65

Notice to Take Deposition

April 23, 2018 PACER
66

Motion for Protective Order

1 Exhibit A

View on PACER

April 27, 2018 PACER
67

Protective Order

April 27, 2018 PACER
68

Description not available

April 30, 2018 PACER
69

Certificate of Service

May 3, 2018 PACER
70

Notice to Take Deposition

May 14, 2018 PACER
71

Motion for Order

1 Envelope

View on PACER

May 16, 2018 PACER
72

Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief

May 17, 2018 PACER
73

Notice of Hearing

June 5, 2018 PACER
74

Description not available

June 7, 2018 PACER
75

Order

June 7, 2018 PACER
76

Certificate of Service

June 21, 2018 PACER
77

Motion to Compel

June 21, 2018 PACER
78

Suggestions in Support of Motion

1 Exhibit 1 (Request to Inspect)

View on PACER

2 Exhibit 2 (Wyse Revocation Order)

View on PACER

3 Exhibit 3 (Gallagher Revocation Order)

View on PACER

June 21, 2018 PACER
79

Suggestions in Opposition to Motion

June 22, 2018 PACER
80

Description not available

June 27, 2018 PACER
81

Order on Motion to Compel

June 27, 2018 PACER
82

Certificate of Service

June 29, 2018 PACER
83

Certificate of Service

June 29, 2018 PACER
84

Order

June 29, 2018 PACER
85

Certificate of Service

July 13, 2018 PACER
86

Notice to Take Deposition

July 23, 2018 PACER
87

Certificate of Service

July 23, 2018 PACER
88

Certificate of Service

July 24, 2018 PACER
89

Certificate of Service

Aug. 9, 2018 PACER
90

Certificate of Service

Aug. 15, 2018 PACER
91

Certificate of Service

Aug. 22, 2018 PACER
92

Certificate of Service

Aug. 23, 2018 PACER
93

Motion to Amend/Correct

Aug. 24, 2018 PACER
94

Order on Motion to Amend/Correct

Aug. 24, 2018 PACER
95

Notice to Take Deposition

Aug. 27, 2018 PACER
96

Notice to Take Deposition

Aug. 30, 2018 PACER
97

Notice to Take Deposition

Aug. 30, 2018 PACER
98

Notice to Take Deposition

Sept. 6, 2018 PACER

State / Territory: Missouri

Case Type(s):

Criminal Justice (Other)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Aug. 14, 2017

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

All adult parolees in the state of Missouri who currently face, or who in the future will face, parole revocation proceedings.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

MacArthur Justice Center

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

State of Missouri, State

Defendant Type(s):

Corrections

Jurisdiction-wide

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Due Process: Procedural Due Process

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

None yet

Unknown

Source of Relief:

Unknown

None yet

Issues

General:

Access to lawyers or judicial system

Parole grant/revocation