Hayden v. Keller, 5:10–CT–3123–BO.

• Decision Date: 25 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. 5:10–CT–3123–BO.,5:10–CT–3123–BO.
• Citation: 134 F.Supp.3d 1000
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of North Carolina
• Parties: Shaun Antonio HAYDEN, Plaintiff, v. Alvin KELLER, et al., Defendants.

134 F.Supp.3d 1000

Shaun Antonio HAYDEN, Plaintiff,

v.Alvin KELLER, et al., Defendants.

No. 5:10–CT–3123–BO.

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division.

Signed Sept. 25, 2015.

Elizabeth Guild Simpson, Mary Sheehan Pollard, N.C. Prisoner Legal Services, Raleigh, NC, for Plaintiff.

Joseph Finarelli, N.C. Dept. of Justice, Raleigh, NC, for Defendants.

ORDER

TERRENCE W. BOYLE, District Judge.

On July 15, 2010, plaintiff Shaun Antonio Hayden ("Hayden"), proceeding pro se, filed this complaint in this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl., D.E. 1. After denying defendants' motion to dismiss the matter, the court directed that Hayden be represented by North Carolina Prison Legal Services, Inc. ("NCPLS"). Hayden v. Keller, No. 10–HC–2272–BO, Orders, D.E. 9 and 25; Notices, D.E. 10–15, 22. NCPLS entered an appearance and, on September 11, 2013, filed an amended complaint on Hayden's behalf pursuant to Section 1983. Id.; Hayden, 5:10–CT–3123–BO, Am. Compl., D.E. 10 and Notice of Appearance, D.E. 13. Cross motions for summary judgment are now before the court. Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J., D.E. 30; Defs' Mot. Summ. J., D.E. 36. On July 27, 2015, the court held a hearing on the pending motions. Min., D.E. 49. Thereafter, the motions were supplemented with statistical data and additional briefing. Orders, D.E. 50 and 53; Responses, D.E. 52, 56–57; In this posture, the matter is ripe for determination.

A. Issue

Hayden contends that, as a juvenile offender sentenced to a life sentence with parole, he is owed something that adult offenders are not: a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011, 176 L.Ed.2d 825 (2010). Hayden further contends that the North Carolina Post–Release Supervision and Parole Commission ("Parole Commission" or "Commission") and their procedures do not afford him that opportunity. Hayden seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, but no monetary damages.

B. Facts

Hayden is a prisoner in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety ("NCDPS"). Hayden was born on October 6, 1966. Mem. in Supp. Pl's Mot. Summ. J., D.E. 31, Decl. Hayden ¶ 1; Def's Mot. Summ. J., D.E. 36, Ex. A—Offender Info. He was fifteen years old when he committed the crimes for which he is now imprisoned. Id., ¶¶ 2–3; Id., Ex. B and C—Indictments, Probable Cause Hearing. Although Hayden was to be tried as an adult at the age of sixteen, he did not go to trial, but pled guilty to first degree burglary; assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury not resulting in death; first degree sexual offense; second degree sexual offense; first degree rape; attempted second degree rape; and breaking and entering and larceny. Id. ¶ 4; Id., Ex. D.—Judgment and Commitment. The maximum allowable prison term was two life terms plus 160 years. Def's Mot, Ex. C. Hayden was sentenced to a term of his natural life. Pl's Mot. Summ. J., D.E. 31, ¶ 6. He has been in the custody of the NCDPS since March of 1983, and he is now 48 years old.

Hayden became eligible to be considered for parole in 2002, after serving a term of twenty years. N.C. Gen.Stat. § 15A–1371(a1) (1983). The Parole Commission has considered him for parole every year¹ since 2002 under the normal adult offender parole procedures. Pl's Mot. Summ. J., ¶ 7; D.E. 32, Ex. B, Parole Comm'n Records. Each year parole has been denied at the first level of review. Id., ¶ 8.

In North Carolina, the Parole Commission is the independent agency responsible for evaluating offenders for parole release. See N.C. Gen.Stat. § 143B–720(a). The Parole Commission consists of four commissioners, assisted by a chief administrator and staff. Mem. in Supp. Pl's Mot. Summ. J., D.E. 32, Dep. Mary Stevens (Agent of Parole Commission), at 20. The Commission employs a staff of thirty-six people including a psychologist, two lead parole case analysts, and sixteen parole case analysts. Dep. Stevens at 8–9. For each case, the assigned analyst researches the record and the inmate file, including using such specific criteria that the Commission has said they want to know about the case, and then prepares a written report and recommendation. Id. at 21, 25, 33–34, and 45. Caseloads are high: each parole case analyst is responsible for approximately 4,338 offenders. Dep. Stevens at 28. According to Paul Butler, the Chairman of the Parole Commission, the most important information in the summary includes the following: the official crime version (narrative of events of crime of conviction); prison infraction history; gang membership; psychological evaluations; custody level history; visitation history; and a home plan. Dep. Butler at 51–52. Special weight is given to the "brutality of the crime." Id. at 54–55.

As for the commissioners, they work full-time for the Commission. Dep. Stevens at 104. The law requires a majority of commissioners (three out of four) to vote on every case. Id. at 86; N.C. Gen.Stat. § 143B–721(d). They vote on in excess of 2,000 cases every month, not including other work the commissioners do. Id. at 106. As of September 2014, the Parole Commission had reviewed about 15, 200 parole cases for that year. Id.

The parole process is a two step process. Step one, or level one, is referred to as the "review." Dep. Stevens at 20–12. Step two, or level two, is referred to as the "investigation." Id. At the "review" stage, the parole case analyst relies on any psychological evaluations contained within the offender's prison file. Dep. Stevens at 63. After writing the summary of the prison file, and making a written recommendation for or against granting parole, the parole case analyst provides the information to a commissioner. Id. at 43.

The commissioners make independent electronic votes. Ex. E. Dep. Butler at 50; Ex. D. Dep. Stevens at 104, 107. They do not consult one another in casting their ballots, nor do they cast their ballots in the same room. Ex. E, Dep. Butler at 50–51. On a "fairly typical day," a commissioner casts approximately 91 votes. Id. at 25. The commissioners have many other responsibilities including presiding over Post–Release Supervision Revocation hearings, attending training, overseeing office administration, reviewing statistical reports, making field visits to jails and probation offices, approving warrants for arrest, and meeting with members of the public on Tuesdays. Id. at 14, 18–19, 23–24, 31, 33; Dep. Stevens at 71. The commissioners vote on felony parole cases five days a week. Dep. Butler at 62.

The Parole Commission does not provide notice to a juvenile offender in advance of his/her parole review; there is no opportunity for a juvenile offender to be heard during the course of his/her parole review; and, the commissioners do not hold an in-person hearing to deliberate together on the question of a juvenile offender's suitability for parole.² Dep. Stevens at 43–53. The commissioners are not aware, and do not consider, whether a particular offender was a juvenile at the time of his/her offense. Dep. Stevens at 111.

Testimony states that a commissioner's usual vote is "no" on felony parole at the "review" stage. Dep. Stevens at 98. If the vote is not "no," the commissioner will most likely vote "incomplete," and recommend an "investigation." Id. At the "investigation" stage, the parole case analyst notifies the offender, the offender's prison facility, the victim, the prosecuting district attorney, and law enforcement. Id. at 45, 48–49. It is normal practice for the commission to order a psychological report to be conducted on the offender at this second level of review. Dep. Butler at 35. All such reports must be completed by the Parole Commission's staff psychologist, Dr. Denis Lewandowski. Dep. Stevens at 18. The probation department is requested to investigate the feasibility of the offender's proposed home plan. Id. at 54. If the "investigation" shows that the candidate for parole is promising, the Parole Commission will normally offer a "MAPP contract"—which is a contract between the offender, the prison, and the Parole Commission. Dep. Butler at 36. The contract lets an offender work through different custody levels and "get on work release for one to five years before they are released." Dep. Stevens at 77–79. The MAPP contract is ordinarily a mandatory step toward felony parole. Id. at 20–21; Dep. Butler at 60. Hayden has been denied parole at the review stage each year since 2002, thus never reaching the level two investigation.

Reasons for parole denial are considered confidential. Records created, received, and used by the Parole Commission in the performance of its statutory duties are likewise confidential and are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law.³ 1996 Op. Atty Gen'l 36 (April 24, 1996).

The court notes that while the affidavits of the two commissioners before the court state no consideration of age is given in a parole review, there is evidence in the record that at least one case analyst did negatively consider age as a parole factor. The analyst review reads as follows:

Hayden was 15 years old when he committed these crimes. In 3/07 DOP completed a risk assessment which found Hayden to be an acceptable risk for unsupervised access to the community. It is important to note that in the risk assessment it was further noted that the young age that Hayden did the crimes and the fact that he has spent much of his developmental life in prison suggests he will always require at least moderate level of supervision since it is unlikely that he has significant coping skills and decision making ability to function well without good guidance. In 11/10 DOP completed another risk assessment which found him to be an unacceptable risk for unsupervised access to the community. Based on the belief that Hayden would not adhere to the conditions of parole and the risk he poses to public safety, it is recommend that

...