Chandler v. U.S. Parole Comm'n

• Decision Date: 21 August 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 06-0664 (PLF)
• Parties: JOHNNY RAY CHANDLER, SR., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

JOHNNY RAY CHANDLER, SR., Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 06-0664 (PLF)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

August 21, 2015

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The Court issued an Opinion and an accompanying Order on August 8, 2014, granting in part and denying in part Mr. Chandler's motion for summary judgment. Chandler v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 60 F. Supp. 3d 205 (D.D.C. 2014); Order [Dkt. No. 162]. The Court granted summary judgment to Mr. Chandler on his Fifth Amendment procedural due process claim. See Chandler v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 214-24. The Court denied him summary judgment, however, on his claim brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, which was premised on the theory that the District of Columbia's Sex Offender Registration Act of 1999 "impliedly restricts USPC's authority to prescribe conditions of parole, when those conditions implicate the sex offender label or other conditions associated with that label." Id. at 213. The Court concluded that "there is no basis in the D.C. Code or elsewhere to draw such a connection between SORA and the separate statutory and regulatory provisions governing USPC's authority to prescribe conditions of parole." Id. at 213-14.

Page 2

But given that the defendants had neither filed a cross-motion for summary judgment nor a motion to dismiss either or both of Mr. Chandler's claims, the Court did not enter judgment in favor of USPC with respect to the statutory claim, nor did it dismiss the claim. Chandler v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 60 F. Supp. 3d at 214 & n.6. Notwithstanding the fact that no final judgment was entered in the case, both the defendants and Mr. Chandler (operating pro se, despite being represented by counsel) filed notices of appeal from the Court's Opinion and Order. See Defendants' Notice of Appeal (Oct. 7, 2014) [Dkt. No. 165]; Chandler's Pro Se Notice of Appeal (Sept. 19, 2014) [Dkt. No. 167]. The D.C. Circuit subsequently granted the defendants' motion to dismiss their appeal. See Order, No. 14-5255 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 29, 2014) [Dkt. No. 169]. And Mr. Chandler's pro se appeal recently was dismissed for lack of prosecution. See Order, No. 14-5264 (D.C. Cir. July 6, 2015).

In view of this procedural history, the Court will direct the parties to meet and confer, and then to file a joint status report setting forth their respective views on how the remainder of this case should proceed. The parties' joint status...