Chandler v. U.S. Parole Comm'n

• Citation: 60 F.Supp.3d 205
• Decision Date: 08 August 2014
• 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

60 F.Supp.3d 205

Johnny Ray Chandler, Sr., Plaintiff

v.United States Parole Commission, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 06–0664 PLF

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed August 8, 2014

Brian T. McLaughlin, Jerome Albert Murphy, Crowell & Moring LLP, Deborah Maxine Golden, Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Kenneth A. Adebonojo, Michelle Lo, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for United States Parole Commission, Isaac Fulwood, Jr., Cranston J. Mitchell, Patricia K. Cushwa, J Patricia Wilson Smoot, Adrienne R. Poteat, Matthew Kiely and Gregory Campos.

OPINION

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Johnny Ray Chandler, Sr., challenges the United States Parole Commission's (“USPC”) imposition on his parole of a Special Sex Offender Aftercare Condition. This Condition entailed Chandler's supervision by a devoted Sex Offender Unit, as well as his assignment to sex offender therapy. Mr. Chandler—imprisoned after his conviction on a plea to robbery, armed robbery, and assault with a dangerous weapon in the D.C. Superior Court—has never been convicted of a sex crime. He contends that USPC lacks any legal authority to impose the Special Sex Offender Aftercare Condition on him. He further argues that, even if USPC does possess such authority under the statutory and regulatory framework that governs its activities, USPC has violated his constitutional right to procedural due process by failing to provide him with requisite safeguards in advance of its imposition of the Condition.

The challenged events occurred in 2005 and 2006, but the focus of Chandler's pending motion for summary judgment is prospective, because in late 2006 Chandler was returned to prison for violating conditions of his parole. He currently remains incarcerated, but will be re-released on parole in October of 2014. He seeks various forms of declaratory and injunctive relief ahead of his mandatory re-release, at which point it is anticipated that the Special Sex Offender Aftercare Condition again will be imposed.

The Court has carefully considered the briefs filed by the parties, the oral arguments presented by counsel on June 27, 2014, the relevant legal authorities, and the relevant portions of the record in this case. The Court will grant judgment to the plaintiff on his procedural due process claim, but will deny judgment to him on his statutory claim. The Court therefore will order USPC to provide Chandler with certain procedural protections, as delineated in this Opinion and set forth in an accompanying Order, in advance of any future imposition of the Special Sex Offender Aftercare Condition as a term of Chandler's parole.¹

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual Background

Johnny Ray Chandler, Sr., is currently incarcerated at the United States Penitentiary in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Mr. Chandler was convicted in 1991 on his plea to robbery, armed robbery, and assault with a dangerous weapon in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. AR 0001–10. He was released on parole in June of 2005. AR 0086, 00170. Like all D.C. parolees, Chandler was assigned to be supervised by the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia (“CSOSA”), a “Federal agency providing supervision of adults on probation, parole, and supervised release” in the District. Court Servs. & Offender Supervision Agency for the Dist. of Columbia , http://www.csosa.gov (homepage accessed on July 28, 2014).

Shortly after Chandler's release into the community, two women who formerly had been professionally involved with Chandler's criminal proceedings and incarceration—one as his court-appointed appellate counsel, and another as his case manager—contacted CSOSA to report that Chandler had written personal letters to them that the women found to be disturbing. The letters to the attorney had been sent during a three-week period in September of 1998, see AR 0092–0105; the letters to his case manager in the early weeks of his release on parole in 2005. See AR 0135–38. Because of their contents, the letters caused concern among CSOSA officials, who determined that Chandler was a “potential sex offender.” See AR 0129.² Consequently, CSOSA scheduled Chandler for a Psychosexual Risk Assessment and placed him on GPS monitoring pending its outcome. See AR 0129–30, 0140–46.

The assessment was conducted by Dr. Phyllis Brodie, a licensed clinical psychologist affiliated with the Center for Clinical and Forensic Services, Inc. AR 0140–46. On July 14, 2005, Dr. Brodie conducted a clinical interview of Chandler that covered a range of subjects, including Chandler's family upbringing, his educational and employment histories, his experiences using illicit substances, and his sexual and romantic histories. See AR 0141–44. In addition, Dr. Brodie reviewed evidence including Chandler's letters to his former attorney, a “Sexual History Questionnaire,” and the views of Chandler's CSO. See AR 0140. In a Psychosexual Risk Assessment report issued on August 12, 2005, Dr. Brodie expressed her opinion that “Mr. Chandler is at high risk for perpetrating sexual violence.” AR 0145. She therefore recommended that Chandler's case be transferred to CSOSA's Sex Offender Unit, “to provide more comprehensive supervision with a focus on sexual behaviors.” AR 0146. Dr. Brodie further recommended that Chandler “follow the behavioral contract designed for use with sex offenders on probation”; that he “participate in a sexual history polygraph” to be used “to establish a risk management and treatment plan that addresses the entirety of his risk”; that he “be referred for sex offender treatment services,” preferably involving group therapy; that any potential romantic partner “be informed of his history of provocative sexual behaviors”; and that he be referred to a psychiatrist to explore potential medication options. Id.

Over the next several months, CSOSA maintained GPS monitoring of Chandler, although Chandler violated this condition several times. AR 0130. In October 2005, Chandler's CSO twice informed him that he would remain under GPS surveillance until his supervision was transferred to the Sex Offender Unit. Id. In late December of 2005, a USPC official presented Chandler with a form entitled “Modification of Release Conditions,” which provided notice that a recommendation would be made to USPC decision-makers that Chandler “be placed under supervision with the Sex Offender Unit with a more comprehensive focus and placed on GPS monitoring[,] based on the psychological assessment” conducted by Dr. Brodie. AR 0152–53. Mr. Chandler signed the form, thereby agreeing to the proposed modification of his release conditions and waiving a ten-day waiting period for raising objections. See AR 0152. Chandler has maintained, however, that he signed the form only because he was coerced by the threat of being laden with a parole violation if he did not sign it. Pl.'s Stmt. of Facts ¶ 41. A few days later, Chandler authored a memorandum addressed to USPC and purporting to be a “Notice of Appeal,” in which he protested the recommendation that he be placed under the supervision of the Sex Offender Unit. AR 0147–49. In his memorandum, Chandler asserted that, “I am not a Sex Offender and it would be a slanderous and grave defamation [o]f my character if I am referred to the Sex Offenders Unit.” AR 0148.

A Parole Commissioner approved the modification of Chandler's parole conditions on January 17, 2006, see AR 0152–53, and on the following day USPC issued a formal Notice of Action stating that the agency had ordered that Chandler “be subject to the Special Sex Offender Aftercare Condition.” AR 0154. The Notice explained that as a part of this special condition, Chandler would be required to “participate in an in-patient or out-patient mental health program as directed by [his CSO], with special emphasis on long-term sex offender testing and treatment.” Id. Chandler also was informed that he was “expected to acknowledge [his] need for treatment.” Id. In addition, the Notice stated that Chandler would be subject to GPS monitoring along with a curfew and potential geographic limitations on his movements. Id.

The Notice of Action emphasized that USPC's decision was “not appealable.” AR 0154. Despite this admonition, Chandler penned another “Notice of Appeal” to USPC, in which he again protested his assignment to CSOSA's Sex Offender Unit and expressed outrage at being considered a sex offender. AR 0155–56. Chandler also paid an in-person visit to an office of the USPC, at which he appeared “agitated and upset over the sex offender condition” added to his parole, as reported by the USPC official who received him. AR 0158. That same day, February 1, 2006, a USPC Hearing Examiner wrote a letter to Chandler that acknowledged Chandler's objections to the Special Sex Offender Aftercare Condition, yet which warned that “[t]he condition will not likely be removed until those involved in your treatment and supervision recommend removal.” Id.

In the meanwhile, Chandler's case had been transferred to the supervision of CSOSA's Sex Offender Unit, to which Chandler reported on January 27, 2006, for an initial interview and orientation. See AR 0159, 0170. Two months later, Chandler signed a “Treatment Contract & Attendance Policy” issued to him by the Center for Clinical and Forensic Services, where CSOSA had assigned him to undergo sex offender treatment. The contract pertained to “Phase 1” of the treatment program, and it purported to “outline[ ] the expectations for participating and the potential consequences of not appropriately participating” in this introductory phase of treatment. Treatment Contract at 1. Among the sixteen items that Chandler acknowledged by signing the form were the following: “all high risk activities,” which are “defined by the treating sex offender therapist,” would be “reported immediately to the appropriate parties to ensure...