Heredia v. Blythe

OPINION AND ORDER

JAMES D.PETERSON, District Judge.

Plaintiffs represent a class of Wisconsin prisoners serving long sentences for crimes committed when they were minors. The central question in the case is how the Constitution limits the authority of the Wisconsin Parole Commission to grant or deny parole to those who committed crimes as juveniles.

The traditional view is that the Constitution places few limits on a state parole board's discretion. Plaintiffs say that view is outdated in light of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). Graham held that the Eighth Amendment prohibits life without parole sentences for juveniles who committed crimes other than homicide, because such a sentence would be grossly

2

disproportionate to the offense. Building from this basic principle, plaintiffs contend that the commission may not deny them parole for any reason other than their failure to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation, and that defendants must provide them the resources they need to meet that standard by their first parole eligibility date. Plaintiffs contend further that they are entitled to a range of procedural protections in connection with parole hearings, including counsel, experts, in-person interviews with the commission chairperson, and advanced notice of any information that the commission may rely on to deny parole.

Plaintiffs assert claims under the Eighth Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Sixth Amendment. Plaintiffs sue the parole commissioners, the secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, and the director of the Bureau of Classification and Movement, contending that the latter two defendants fail to meet their constitutional obligations to help plaintiffs demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation by their parole eligibility date. Both sides move for summary judgment. Dkt. 120 and Dkt. 126.

Plaintiffs make a good case that Wisconsin's parole system uses imprecise standards that are sometimes applied capriciously, and that offenders are not provided much help in achieving and demonstrating maturity and rehabilitation. Plaintiffs show that there are many ways that the parole system could be improved to make it fairer, more consistent, and grounded in a better understanding of youthful offenders.

But the Constitution does not require Wisconsin to have an ideal parole system. The Constitution establishes a minimum, beyond which lies unusual cruelty. The role of the court here is simply to determine whether Wisconsin's parole system meets the constitutional minimum as established by Supreme Court precedent. And the Supreme Court has made it clear that parole is fundamentally a discretionary determination within the purview of the

3

executive and legislative branches of state government. Nothing in Graham or any other controlling case undermines that basic understanding. Graham prohibits life sentences for juvenile offenders under some circumstances, but it doesn't empower the courts to scrutinize every decision that affects a juvenile offender's chances of parole, nor does it impose exacting procedural requirements on parole officials. And-a point critical to plaintiffs' central theme- nothing in Graham prohibits the commission from considering the seriousness of the offense and the consequences to the victims in making parole decisions.

Those convicted of serious crimes as juveniles commonly serve long sentences in Wisconsin, and parole is not guaranteed. But plaintiffs have not shown that, as a class, they face de facto life sentences without a legitimate opportunity for parole at some point. They have not shown that defendants refuse to allow plaintiffs to progress toward parole, or that they fail to consider plaintiffs' youth when making parole decisions. Under these circumstances, plaintiffs are not entitled to class relief under any of their constitutional theories. The court will grant defendants' motion for summary judgment and deny plaintiffs' motion.

BACKGROUND

A. Overview of the parole process

Plaintiffs are a class of Wisconsin prisoners who committed crimes when they were under the age of 18, received a sentence of at least 470 months, and are eligible for release under parole supervision or will be eligible at some point. Wisconsin abolished parole in 2000 for crimes committed after December 31, 1999, and in its place enacted a determinate sentencing scheme that includes a fixed term of imprisonment and a fixed term of supervised

4

release. See Wis.Stat. § 973.01 and § 973.014; State v. Yakich, 2022 WI 8, ¶ 33, 400 Wis.2d 549, 970 N.W.2d 12. The class includes only prisoners sentenced under the indeterminate system, so all class members committed their crimes before 2000.

Under the indeterminate system, prisoners become eligible for parole after serving 25 percent of their sentence, or six months, whichever is greater. See Wis.Stat. § 304.06(1)(b) (1997-98). If prisoners received a life sentence with the possibility of parole, the default rule is that they are eligible for parole after 20 years, which may be reduced to approximately 13 years and four months with good time credits; but the sentencing court may also set a later initial eligibility date. See State v. Borrell, 167 Wis.2d 749, 765 & n.6, 482 N.W.2d 883 (1992) (citing Wis.Stat. § 973.014, § 302.11, and § 304.06).

State statutes impose few substantive requirements on parole decisions. The commission must consider statements offered by the victim, the district attorney's office, and the sentencing court, see Wis.Stat. § 304.06(1)(e), and the commission may not grant parole unless the prisoner “has adequate plans for suitable employment or to otherwise sustain himself or herself,” id. § 304.06(2). The primary guidance for the commission comes from Wis. Admin. Code § PAC 1.06(16), which sets for the following criteria for making a parole decision:

(a) The inmate has become parole or release to extended supervision eligible under s. 304.06, Stats., and s. PAC 1.05

(b) The inmate has served sufficient time so that release would not depreciate the seriousness of the offense

(c) The inmate has demonstrated satisfactory adjustment to the institution

(d) The inmate has not refused or neglected to perform required or assigned duties

5

(e) The inmate has participated in and has demonstrated sufficient efforts in required or recommended programs which have been made available by demonstrating one of the following:

1. The inmate has gained maximum benefit from programs.

2. The inmate can complete programming in the community without presenting an undue risk.

3. The inmate has not been able to gain entry into programming and release would not present an undue risk.

(f) The inmate has developed an adequate release plan.

(g) The inmate is subject to a sentence of confinement in another state or is in the United States illegally and may be deported.

(h) The inmate has reached a point at which the commission concludes that release would not pose an unreasonable risk to the public and would be in the interests of justice.

The commission construes § PAC 1.06(16) as requiring the prisoner to satisfy all the criteria before being released.

Section PAC 1.06 applies to both adult and juvenile offenders. The commission has no special policies or procedures for parole applicants who were juveniles at the time of their offense.

Prisoners receive their first parole interview during the month before their parole eligibility date. At least 15 days before the interview, prisoners receive a notice that elaborates on the criteria that the commission may consider, including the prisoner's age, both at the time of the parole decision and at the time of the offense. Dkt. 124-1. The notice lists numerous other factors, including the offender's reason for committing the crime, the offender's part in the crime, and any other mitigating or aggravating facts related to the crime.

The notice states that the commission may consider documents in the prisoners' institutional files and that the prisoners will have the opportunity during the interview to

6

“provide information that is relevant, material, and not unduly repetitious, including the opportunity to comment on perceived errors of material fact in the record.” Prisoners are asked to submit a release plan, but that form instructs prisoners not to attach any documents.

The interview is conducted by one commissioner. After the interview, the commissioner may either deny release or recommend granting release. If release is recommended, the chairperson must approve that recommendation. If release is denied, the commissioner gives the prisoner a document called a “parole commission action” that provides the reasons for denial along with a date for the next opportunity to be considered for release. The document lists general reasons for the decision based on the criteria in § PAC 1.06(16), and it also includes detailed “committee comments” that elaborate on those reasons. The chairperson reviews decisions that defer reconsideration for more than 12 months.

B. Named plaintiffs

Plaintiff Victoriano Heredia was convicted of first-degree intentional homicide as party...