Filed Date: Aug. 14, 2017
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
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:
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)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6370150/parties/gasca-v-precythe/
Bough, Stephen Rogers (Missouri)
Bedi, Sheila A. (Illinois)
Bowman, Locke E. III (Illinois)
Breihan, Amy Elizabeth (Missouri)
Crane, Megan G (Missouri)
Bough, Stephen Rogers (Missouri)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/6370150/gasca-v-precythe/
Last updated April 14, 2024, 3:09 a.m.
State / Territory: Missouri
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
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):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Constitutional Clause(s):
Due Process: Procedural Due Process
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General: