Case 4:1E3-F-cILvE-D002501103-NROPV-C2F2 B4:07DPoMcuPmOeLKnt- 1C-L1ERFKiOleFdD1I2S/T2R3I/C1T3COPUaRgTe 1 of 10

IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT FOR POLK COUNTY

BLAIR J. GREIMAN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
JASON CARLSTROM, in his Official Capacity as Chair of the Iowa Board of Parole, the IOWA BOARD OF PAROLE, JOHN R. BALDWIN, in his Official Capacity as Director of the Iowa Department of Corrections, and the IOWA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, jointly and severally,
Defendants.

PETITION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

The Plaintiff, Blair Greiman, by and through Counsel, and for his Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief pursuant to Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.1101 against the Defendants, states as follows:
INTRODUCTION 1. This action for declaratory and injunctive relief is brought for violation of the Plaintiffs rights guaranteed under Amendments VIII and XIV of the United States Constitution, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and Article I, sections 17 and 9, of the Iowa Constitution. 2. Plaintiff is an individual who was charged and tried as an adult for a crime committed when he was under the age of eighteen, punished by a mandatory adult sentence of life imprisonment, and is currently being detained without a meaningful opportunity for release. 3. Plaintiff seeks a declaration that policies and practices of the Iowa Board of Parole and the Iowa Department of Corrections deny Mr. Greiman a meaningful opportunity for release, thus violating the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and Article I, sections 17 and 9 of the Iowa Constitution.

Case 4:1E3-F-cILvE-D002501103-NROPV-C2F2 B4:07DPoMcuPmOeLKnt- 1C-L1ERFKiOleFdD1I2S/T2R3I/C1T3COPUaRgTe 2 of 10
4. Plaintiff does not, in this action, challenge his judgment or conviction and does not seek, in this matter, to invalidate his life sentence; rather, Plaintiff seeks this court's order that the Iowa Board of Parole and the Department of Corrections shall afford him, as a juvenile offender sentenced to life with the possibility of parole, a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on his youth at the time of the offense and his demonstrated rehabilitation and maturity.
JURISDICTION 5. This court has concurrent jurisdiction over the federa l constitutional claims under 42 US .C. § 1983. Howlett v. Rose , 496 U.S. 356 (1990). This court has jurisdiction over the state constitutional claims under Iowa Code § 602.610 l (2013).
PARTIES 6. Blair Greiman is an inmate at Anamosa State Penitentiary located in Jones County, Iowa. His address is 406 North High Street, Anamosa, IA 52205. 7. Jason Carlstrom is Chair of the Iowa Board of Parole located in Polk County, Iowa. His address is 510 E 12th Street, Suite 3, Des Moines, IA 50319. The Iowa Board of Parole is a state agency responsible for the administration of parole decisions including those concerning the Plaintiff. Iowa Code § 904A.4 (2013). 8. John Baldwin is Director of the Iowa Department of Corrections located in Po lk County, Iowa.
His address is 510 East 1t 11 Street, Des Moines, Iowa 50319. The Iowa Department of Corrections is a state
agency responsible for the administration of state correctional facilities, including the Anamosa State Penitentiary. Iowa Code § 904.103 (2013).
VENUE 9. Venue is proper in this court under Iowa Code§ 616.3(2) as the Defendants are headquartered in, and primarily conduct their business from , and took the actions complained of herein in, Polk County, Iowa, and as Plaintiff is incarcerated in the State.
2

Case 4:1E3-F-cILvE-D002501103-NROPV-C2F2 B4:07DPoMcuPmOeLKnt- 1C-L1ERFKiOleFdD1I2S/T2R3I/C1T3COPUaRgTe 3 of 10
BACKGROUND FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 10. Juvenile offenders, as compared to adults, have lessened culpability and are less deserving of the harshest punishments available. They lack maturity and have an underdeveloped sense of responsibility, making them more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures. 11. On October 4, 1982, in Criminal No. OTOC014446 (Cerro Gordo Co.), following a jury trial, Mr. Greiman was sentenced to life without parole for 1st degree kidnapping (Iowa Code§§ 710.1(3) and 710.2). At the time of the offense, Mr. Greiman was 16 years old. 12. In the State of Iowa, kidnapping in the first degree is a class "A" felony. Iowa Code§ 710.2. Life without parole was then the mandatory sentence for all those convicted of class "A" felonies. Iowa Code § 902 .1. 13.0n May 17, 2010, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that "[t]he Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide." Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 , 2034 (2010). The Court held that the imposition of the sentence of life without parole on juveniles for a non-homicide offense violates the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. Graham, 130 S.Ct. at 2030. 14. Under Graham, "the State must. . . give [juvenile defendants convicted of non-homicide crimes] some meaningful opportlmity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Mr. Greiman is entitled to such an opportunity. 15. Subsequent to Graham, on December 17, 2010 the Iowa Supreme Court considered how Graham affected Iowa's sentencing laws as applied to juveniles convicted of non-homicide offenses. Bonilla v. State, 791 N.W.2d 697 (Iowa 2010) . The Court found that the portions oflowa' s sentencing laws that barred non-homicide class "A" felons from parole consideration to be unconstitutional as applied to juveniles. Bonilla, 791 N.W.2d at 701.
3

Case 4:1E3-F-cILvE-D002501103-NROPV-C2F2 B4:07DPoMcuPmOeLKnt- 1C-L1ERFKiOleFdD1I2S/T2R3I/C1T3COPUaRgTe 4 of 10
16. The Iowa legislature amended its sentencing laws in July, 2011 to account for these new constitutional developments. Iowa Code Ann. §902.1(2)(West 2013). The amended statute mandates that an individual cannot be sentenced to life without parole for a crime committed while the individual was a minor, with the exception of first-degree murder, and that such an individual is eligible for parole after serving the statutory minimum term of twenty-five years. See Section 902.1 (2) effective July 27, 2011 (see Senate File 533, Section 147 (West 2011)). Id.
17. Mr. Greiman filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence on October 15, 2010 in the Cerro Gordo County District Court of Iowa.
18. On February 20, 2012, Judge Carroll of the Cerro Gordo County District Court of Iowa vacated Mr. Greiman's original sentence of life without the possibility of parole on the grounds that
the sentence was unconstitutional under both federal and Iowa law. Judge Carroll then resentenced Mr.
Greiman to life with eligibility for parole. 19. The amended sentence mandates that Mr. Greiman is now eligible for parole having long-
since served the statutory minimum term of twenty-five years. See Section 902.1(2) effective July 27, 2011 (see Senate File 533, Section 147 (West 2011)); State v. Null, 836 N.W.2d 41(Iowa2013).
GENERAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 20. On June 26, 2012 the Parole Board reviewed Mr. Greiman ' s case and summarily denied his parole, failing to take into account his youth and demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation as required under the new constitutional and statutory mandates. 21. The Board's reason for its decision to deny Mr. Greiman was that "In view of the seriousness of the crime for which you were convicted, the Board believes that a parole at this time would not be in the best interest of society." 22. In September 2012, the Parole Board reviewed Mr. Greiman's case again and summarily denied his parole. Mr. Greiman filed a timely appeal of the Parole Board's September 2012 decision and was denied parole for a third time in November 2012.
4

Case 4:1E3-F-cILvE-D002501103-NROPV-C2F2 B4:07DPoMcuPmOeLKnt- 1C-L1ERFKiOleFdD1I2S/T2R3I/C1T3COPUaRgTe 5 of 10
23. In his appeal of the September 2012 decision, Mr. Greiman requested that the Board make a decision in light of the constitutional mandates that non-homicide juvenile offenders be given a reasonable opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.
24. The Parole Board refused to give Mr. Greiman such an opportunity. Each time Mr. Greiman applied for and was denied parole, the reason for the decision to deny parole was the seriousness of offense. No other grounds were considered.
25. Under Graham and Miller, a juvenile offender must be given "some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Mr. Greiman's constitutional rights were violated, as no meaningful opportunity can be granted where the only consideration at a parole hearing is the severity of the offense.
26. Mr. Greiman has been an exemplary inmate for over 30 years. He has had only one minor disciplinary infraction in the last 30 years, become a master woodworker during that time, and published "Ezra's Walk," a novel inspired by his experiences in prison.
27. The board's current policies, however, fail to take into account Mr. Greiman's youth at the time of his offense and his demonstrated maturity and development.
28. In add iti on to the Board's failure to consider more than the severity of the offense, it is currently the Board's policy that before Mr. Greiman can be re leased on parole, he must receive sex offender services, due to the nature of hi s crime.
29. Mr. Gre iman attempted to enro ll but was denied because of a Department of Corrections' policy that limits an inmate's eligib ility to receive sex offender services to those inmates with less than two years before their date of discharge.
30. Inmates serving life sentences with parole are therefore ineligible for the sex offender services required for parole eli gibi lity under the current Department of Corrections' policy because they lack a defined date of discharge.
5

Case 4:1E3-F-cILvE-D002501103-NROPV-C2F2 B4:07DPoMcuPmOeLKnt- 1C-L1ERFKiOleFdD1I2S/T2R3I/C1T3COPUaRgTe 6 of 10
31. Mr. Greiman, who has a life sentence with eligibility for parole, is effectively placed in the same situation as he was previously-a juvenile offender serving life sentences without eligibility for parole.
32 . The Department of Corrections has failed to put in place any policies and procedures to ensure that Mr. Greiman is provided a reasonable opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabi 1itation.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT-FEDERAL CONSTITION) 33. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 above as if set forth fully herein. 34. Defendants' current and continuing failure to afford Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity for release upon consideration of his age at the time of the offence and the subsequent demonstration of maturity and rehabilitation constitutes punishment with no legitimate penological justification, and as such constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution as incorporated by the Foutieenth Amendment and enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 35. Iowa's parole scheme, which denies Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity for release, violates the Eighth Amendment by failing to recognize the difference in moral culpabi lity between adults and juveniles and by requiring completion of sex offender services that Mr. Greiman is ineligible to obtain. 36. The Iowa Department of Corrections ' po licy that prohibits Mr. Greiman from obtaining sex offender services until two years before his date of discharge denies Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity for release in vio lation of the Eighth Amendment. 37. Iowa's parole scheme and the Iowa Department of Corrections' policies, which deny Mr. Greiman a meaningful opportun ity for release, result in juveniles serving longer sentences than adults for the same offense, in vio lation of the Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution. 38. The Iowa Department of Corrections ' policy that Mr. Greiman obtain sex offender services that he is unable to obtain before being made eli gib le for parole, and the Parole Board ' s failure to consider more
6

Case 4:1E3-F-cILvE-D002501103-NROPV-C2F2 B4:07DPoMcuPmOeLKnt- 1C-L1ERFKiOleFdD1I2S/T2R3I/C1T3COPUaRgTe 7 of 10
than the severity of the offense when considering a juvenile offender for parole eligibility, are unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Greiman.
SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT - STATE CONSTITUTION) 39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs l through 32 above as if set forth fully herein. 40. Defendants' current and continuing failure to afford Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity for release upon consideration of his age at the time of the offence and the subsequent demonstration of his maturity and rehabilitation constitutes punishment with no legitimate penological justification, and as such constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of Article I, section 17, of the Constitution of the State of Iowa. 41. Iowa's parole scheme, which denies Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity for re lease, violates section 17 by failing to recognize the difference in moral culpability between adults and juveniles and by requiring completion of sex offender services that Mr. Greiman is ineligible to obtain. 42. The Iowa Department of Corrections' policy that prohibits Mr. Greiman from obtaining sex offender services until two years before his date of discharge denies Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity for release in violation of section 17. 43. Iowa's parole scheme and the Iowa Department of Corrections' policies, which deny Mr. Greiman a meaningful opportunity for release, result in juveniles serving longer sentences than adu lts for the same offense, in violation of section 17. 44. The Iowa Department of Corrections' policy that Mr. Greiman obtain sex offender services he is unable to obtain before being made eligible for parole, and the Parole Board's failure to consider more than the severity of the offense when considering a juvenile offender for parole eligibility, are unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Greiman.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (DUE PROCESS - FEDERAL CONSTITUTION) 45. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs l through 32 above as if set forth fully herein.
7

Case 4:1E3-F-cILvE-D002501103-NROPV-C2F2 B4:07DPoMcuPmOeLKnt- 1C-L1ERFKiOleFdD1I2S/T2R3I/C1T3COPUaRgTe 8 of 10
46. Defendants ' current and continuing failure to afford Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to present evidence of his youth at the time of the offense and of his demonstrated growth , maturity, and rehabilitation constitutes a denial of procedural due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution as enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
47. The Iowa Department of Corrections' procedural requirement that Mr. Greiman complete or receive sex offender services that he is disqualified from obtaining before being made eligible for parole, and the Parole Board ' s failure to consider more than the severity of the offense when considering a juvenile offender for parole eligibility, constitutes a violation of Plaintiff's rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
48. The Iowa Depaiiment of Corrections ' requirement that Mr. Greiman complete sex offender services he is unable to obtain before being made eligible for parole, and the Parole Board's failure to consider more than the severity of the offense when considering a juvenile offender for parole eligibility, are unconstitutional as applied to Mr. Greiman and deny him the procedural due process right to demonstrate his maturity and rehabilitation.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (DUE PROCESS-STATE CONSTITUTION)
49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 32 above as if set forth fully herein. 50. Defendants' current and continuing failure to afford Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to present evidence of his youth at the time of the offense and of his demonstrated growth, maturity, and rehabilitation constitutes a denial of procedural due process of law in violation of Article I, section 9, of the Constitution of the State of Iowa. 51. The Iowa Department of Corrections' procedural requirement that Mr. Greiman, before being made eligible for parole, must complete sex offender treatment which he is disqualified from obtaining and the Parole Board's failure to consider more than the severity of the offense when considering a juvenile offender for parole eligibility, constitutes a violation of Plaintiff's rights under section 9.
8

Case 4:1E3-F-cILvE-D002501103-NROPV-C2F2 B4:07DPoMcuPmOeLKnt- 1C-L1ERFKiOleFdD1I2S/T2R3I/C1T3COPUaRgTe 9 of 10
52. The Iowa Department of Corrections' requirement that Mr. Greiman complete sex offender treatment that he is unable to obta in before being made eligible for parole, and the Parole Board's failure to consider more than the severity of the offense when considering a juvenile offender for parole eligibility, are unconstitutional as app li ed to Mr. Gre im an and deny him the procedural due process right to demonstrate his maturity and rehabilitation.
RELIEF REQUESTED WHEREFORE, Mr. Greiman respectfully requests that this court:
a. Issue a declaratory judgment that the continued incarceration of Plaintiff without affording him a meaningful opportunity to obtain release, based on his juvenile offender status and demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, violates Plaintiffs rights guaranteed by the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Iowa;
b. Order the Department of Corrections to provide Plaintiff with a meaningful opportunity to obtain release by allowing Plaintiff to obtain sex offender services needed to become parole eli gible.
c. Order the Parole Board to provide Plaintiff with a meaningful opportunity to obtain release by requiring the Parole Board to consider Mr. Greiman's youth and its attendant characteristics, in light of his demonstrated maturity and rehabi litation, when making parole eligibility determinations;
d. Order Parole Board to provide Plaintiff with a meaningful opportunity to obtain release by requiring the Parole Board to develop and implement policies and procedures that will ensure the age of the offender at the time of the offense is given due consideration in parole eligibility hearings, as well as the offender' s demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.
e. In particular, order the Parole Board: 1) to "recognize that because 'children are constitutionally different from adults,' they ordinarily cannot be held to the same standard of culpability as adults. " 2) to "recognize that '[j]uveniles are more capable of change than are
9

Case 4:1E3--FcIvL-E0D05210103-RNPO-VC2F2B4:0D7 oPcMuPmOeLnKt -1C-1LERFKileOdF 1D2IS/2T3R/I1C3T CPOUagReT 10 of 10
adults' and that as a result, ' their actions are less likely to be evidence of irretrievably depraved character, "' 3) to "go beyond a mere recitation of the nature of the crime, which the Supreme Court has cautioned cannot overwhelm the analysis," and provide specific :findings of fact as to why the general rules that youth have lessened culpability and a greater capacity for change do not warrant parole of a juvenile offender, and 4) to recognize that "the typical characteristics of youth, which include immaturity, impetuosity, and poor risk assessment, are to be regarded as mitigating, not aggravating factors" in parole eligibility determinations. See State v. Null , 836 N.W.2d 41, 74-75 (Iowa 2013).
f. Retain jurisdiction over this action until such time as the Court is satisfied that the unlawful policies and practices, rules, acts and omissions complained of herein have been satisfactorily rectified.
g. Award Plaintiff court costs and fees; h. Award such other and further relief as seems just and proper.
Michael Heilman Student Legal Intern College of Law University of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242-1113 (319) 335-9023; 319-353-5445 (FAX) law-legal-clinic@uiowa.edu ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT
10

 </s> Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 1 of 20

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
CENTRAL DIVISION

*

BLAIR J. GREIMAN,

*

*

Plaintiff,

*

*

v.

*

*

JOHN HODGES, in his official

*

capacity as Chair of the Iowa Board of *

Parole; the IOWA BOARD OF PAROLE; *

JOHN R. BALDWIN, in his official

*

capacity as Director of the Iowa Department *

of Corrections; and the IOWA

*

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, *

jointly and severally,

*

*

Defendants.

*

*

4:13-cv-510 ORDER

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss filed by the Iowa Board of Parole (“IBOP”),

John Hodges, in his official capacity as Chair of the IBOP, the Iowa Department of Corrections

(“IDOC”), and John R. Baldwin, in his official capacity as Director of the IDOC (collectively

“Defendants”). Clerk’s No. 2. Blair J. Greiman (“Plaintiff”) filed a resistance to the Motion.

Clerk’s No. 7. Defendants did not file a reply. The Court held a hearing on the matter (Clerk’s

No. 15) and it is now fully submitted.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In 1982, a jury convicted Plaintiff of first degree kidnapping, a Class A felony, in

violation of Iowa Code §§ 710.1(3) and 710.2. See Pet. (Clerk’s No. 1-1) ¶ 11. At the time of

the offense, Plaintiff was sixteen years old. Id. On October 4, 1982, Plaintiff was sentenced to

life imprisonment without parole, which at the time was the mandatory sentence for all persons

convicted of Class A felonies. Id. ¶ 12 (citing Iowa Code § 902.1).

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 2 of 20
On May 17, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the “Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide.” Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 82 (2010); Pet. ¶ 13. Specifically, the Court held that while a “State is not required to guarantee eventual freedom to such an offender,” it nonetheless “must impose a sentence that provides some meaningful opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Graham, 560 U.S. at 50; Pet. ¶ 14. On October 15, 2010, relying on Graham, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence in the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County. Pet. ¶ 17. In December 2010, the Iowa Supreme Court held that, pursuant to Graham, Iowa Code § 902.1 was unconstitutional as applied to juveniles to the extent it mandated life imprisonment without parole for nonhomicide Class A felonies. Bonilla v. State, 791 N.W.2d 697, 700–02 (2010); Pet. ¶ 15. In July 2011, the Iowa legislature amended § 902.1 to provide that a juvenile sentenced to life imprisonment for a Class A felony shall be eligible for parole after serving a minimum of twenty-five years confinement. Iowa Code § 902.1; Pet. ¶ 16. On February 20, 2012, a state judge of the second judicial district determined that Plaintiff’s sentence of life without parole for a nonhomicide offense was unconstitutional under both federal and Iowa law. Id. ¶ 18. The judge granted Plaintiff’s Motion to Correct Illegal Sentence, vacated Plaintiff’s sentence of life without parole, and resentenced him to life with the possibility of parole. Id.
Because Plaintiff had already spent more than twenty-five years in custody, he was eligible for parole immediately upon his resentencing. Id. ¶¶ 19–20. On June 26, 2012, the IBOP reviewed Plaintiff’s case and denied parole, concluding that “[i]n view of the seriousness of the crime for which you were convicted, the Board believes that a parole at this time would
2

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 3 of 20
not be in the best interest of society.” Id. ¶ 21. In September 2012, Plaintiff was again considered for parole and was again denied on the same basis. Id. ¶ 22. Plaintiff appealed the September 2012 denial of parole, but his appeal was denied. Id. ¶ 22.
Plaintiff contends that the IBOP failed to provide him a “meaningful opportunity for parole” when the IBOP summarily denied him parole based solely on the seriousness of his offense and failed entirely to “take into account [Plaintiff’s] youth and demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation as required under the new constitutional and statutory mandates.” Id. ¶¶ 20, 23–25. Plaintiff also complains that the IDOC has a policy that requires him to take sex offender classes before he can be released on parole, but only permits inmates with less than two years before discharge to take such classes. Id. ¶¶ 28–29. Thus, since Plaintiff does not have a defined discharge date, he has been denied permission to enroll in sex offender classes, and in turn, cannot fulfill the necessary steps to obtain parole. Id. ¶ 29–31 (“Mr. Greiman, who has a life sentence with eligibility for parole, is effectively placed [by virtue of not being eligible for sex offender classes] in the same situation as he was previously—a juvenile offender serving life sentences without eligibility for parole.”).
Plaintiff filed a Petition against Defendants in the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Iowa on November 22, 2013, asserting that Defendants’ actions deprived him of due process and subjected him to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Federal and Iowa Constitutions. See generally Pet. Plaintiff requests that the Court: (1) issue a declaratory judgment that Defendants’ actions violate the Federal and Iowa Constitutions; (2) order the IDOC to provide Plaintiff with a meaningful opportunity for parole by permitting him to take sex offender classes to become parole eligible; (3) order the IBOP to provide Plaintiff with a
3

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 4 of 20
meaningful opportunity for parole by requiring it to consider in its parole decision Plaintiff’s youth at the time of the offense and his demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation; (4) order the IBOP to provide Plaintiff with a meaningful opportunity for parole by requiring it to develop and implement policies that appropriately take into account in parole decisions youth at the time of offense and demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation; (5) order the IBOP to recognize distinctions between children and adults that have been identified by case law as relevant to parole determinations; (6) retain jurisdiction over the case until all unconstitutional practices and polices have been remedied; (7) award Plaintiff costs and fees; and (8) order such further relief as the Court deems proper. Id. at 9–10. Defendants timely removed the action to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa on December 23, 2013. Clerk’s No. 1.
II. STANDARD OF REVIEW To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, a complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). In reviewing a complaint, a court must “accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint,” and must draw “all reasonable inferences . . . in favor of the plaintiff.” Schaaf v. Residential Funding Corp., 517 F.3d 544, 549 (8th Cir. 2008) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56 (2007)). A viable complaint must include “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the “grounds” of his “entitle[ment] to relief” requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.
4

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 5 of 20
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. “The plausibility standard requires a plaintiff to show at the pleading stage that success on the merits is more than a ‘sheer possibility.’ It is not, however, a ‘probability requirement.’” Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678).
The Supreme Court, in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, described a “two-pronged approach” for evaluating complaints challenged under Rule 12(b)(6). Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. First, a court should divide the allegations between factual and legal allegations; factual allegations should be accepted as true, but legal allegations should be disregarded. Id. Second, the factual allegations must be parsed for facial plausibility. Id.
A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged . . . . Where a complaint pleads facts that are “merely consistent with” a defendant’s liability, it “stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of ‘entitlement to relief.’” Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). The “parsing” process requires careful examination of the plaintiff’s allegations, however, “the complaint should be read as a whole, not parsed piece by piece to determine whether each allegation, in isolation, is plausible.” Braden, 588 F.3d at 594. Indeed, “[r]equiring a plaintiff to rule out every possible lawful explanation for the conduct he challenges would invert the principle that the complaint is construed most favorably to the nonmoving party, and would impose the sort of probability requirement at the pleading stage which Iqbal and Twombly explicitly reject.” Id. at 597 (internal quotations and citations omitted). A court will “draw on its judicial experience and common sense” when determining
5

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 6 of 20
whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Thus, the Court may consider other, more likely explanations for the acts described in the complaint when determining whether the pleaded factual allegations give rise to a plausible entitlement to relief. Id. at 680. But, the Court must always be mindful that “a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of the facts alleged is improbable, and ‘that a recovery is very remote and unlikely.’” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 (1974)). “[W]hile a plaintiff must offer sufficient factual allegations to show that he or she is not merely engaged in a fishing expedition or strike suit, [a court] must also take account of [his or her] limited access to crucial information.” Braden, 588 F.3d at 597.
III. LAW AND ANALYSIS “To state a claim under [42 U.S.C.] § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and must show that the alleged deprivation was committed by a person acting under color of state law.” West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (citations omitted). “[Section] 1983 demands more than a simple claim that the [Defendants] engaged in wrongful conduct and the [Plaintiff was] deprived of constitutional rights. Indeed, to state a cause of action under § 1983, a plaintiff must plead facts that would tend to establish that the defendant’s wrongful conduct caused the constitutional deprivation.” Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir. 2010). In this case, Plaintiff contends that Defendants have deprived him of his constitutional rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment and to due process, pursuant to the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution and pursuant to Article I, §§ 9 and 7 of
6

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 7 of 20

the Iowa Constitution.1 In particular, Plaintiff claims that his federal and state constitutional rights have been infringed because Defendants have denied Plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to obtain release: (1) by failing to consider Plaintiff’s youth at the time of the offense and by failing to consider Plaintiff’s demonstrated growth, maturity, and rehabilitation as part of the parole review process; and (2) by denying Plaintiff participation in sex offender treatment that is a precondition to Plaintiff’s parole eligibility, thereby de facto eliminating Plaintiff’s meaningful opportunity for parole.
A. Overview of Pertinent Case Law The existence of a distinction between juveniles and adults is well rooted in federal jurisprudence. See, e.g., Johnson v. Texas, 509 U.S. 350, 367 (1993) (“A lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of responsibility are found in youth more often than in adults and are more

1

The Fourteenth Amendment provides: “No state shall . . . deprive any person of

life liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Likewise, Article 1, § 9 of the Iowa

Constitution provides: “No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due

process of law.”

The Eighth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth

Amendment, provides that “[e]xcessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,

nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” See Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238, 239

(1972). Similarly, Article I, § 17 of the Iowa Constitution provides that “Excessive bail shall not

be required; excessive fines shall not be imposed, and cruel and unusual punishment shall not be

inflicted.” State another way, these provisions “guarantee[] individuals the right not to be

subjected to excessive sanctions.” Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551, 561 (2005) (noting that

“[t]he right flows from the basic ‘precept of justice that punishment for crime should be

graduated and proportioned to [the] offense.’” (quoting Atkins v. Virginia, 536 U.S. 304, 311

(2002))). In determining whether a punishment is cruel and unusual, “courts must look beyond

historical conceptions to ‘the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing

society.’” Graham, 560 U.S. at 58 (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102 (1976)); see

also State v. Bruegger, 773 N.W.2d 862, 882 (Iowa 2009) (“Article I, section 17 of the Iowa

Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment in language materially identical to its

federal counterpart. Our past cases have generally assumed that the standards for assessing

whether a sentence amounts to cruel and unusual punishment under the Iowa Constitution are

identical to the Federal Constitution.”).

7

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 8 of 20
understandable among the young. These qualities often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions and decisions.”); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U.S. 104, 115–16 (1982) (stating that age is “more than a chronological fact” and observing that children “generally are less mature and responsible than adults”); Bellotti v. Baird, 443 U.S. 622, 635 (1979) (plurality) (noting that juveniles “often lack the experience, perspective, and judgment to recognize and avoid choices that could be detrimental to them”); Gallegos v. Colorado, 370 U.S. 49, 54 (1962) (“The prosecution says that the youth and immaturity of the petitioner . . . are irrelevant. . . . But if we took that position, it would . . . be in callous disregard of this boy’s constitutional rights. He cannot be compared with an adult in full possession of his senses and knowledgeable of the consequences of his admissions.”); Haley v. Ohio, 332 U.S. 596, 599 (1948) (plurality) (emphasizing that “special care” must be employed in evaluating the voluntariness of a juvenile’s confession: “Age 15 is a tender an difficult age for a boy of any race. He cannot be judged by the more exacting standards of maturity. That which would leave a man cold and unimpressed can overawe and overwhelm a lad in his early teens. This is the period of great instability which the crisis of adolescence produces.”). In light of this distinction, the United States Supreme Court has issued numerous decisions in the last few decades concluding that the Eighth Amendment dramatically limits the imposition of the harshest sentences on juvenile offenders.
In Thompson v. Oklahoma, a plurality of the Court concluded that evolving standards of decency prohibited a death sentence for persons under age sixteen at the time of the commission of the offense. See 487 U.S. 815 (1988). Seventeen years later, in Roper v. Simmons, the Supreme Court expanded this holding to individuals under age eighteen at the time of the
8

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 9 of 20
commission of the offense, explaining that juveniles under age eighteen differ from adults in
very fundamental ways: (1) they have a “lack of maturity and an underdeveloped sense of
responsibility” as compared to adults that “often result in impetuous and ill-considered actions
and decisions”; (2) they are “more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside
pressures, including peer pressure”; and (3) “the character of a juvenile is not as well formed as
that of an adult” and the “personality traits of juveniles are more transitory, less fixed.” See
Roper, 543 U.S. at 569–71. According to the Roper Court, “[t]hese differences render suspect
any conclusion that a juvenile falls among the worst offenders” and make clear that the
penological justifications for the death penalty—retribution and deterrence—apply to juveniles
with lesser force that they do to adults:
The susceptibility of juveniles to immature and irresponsible behavior means their irresponsible conduct is not as morally reprehensible as that of an adult. Their own vulnerability and comparative lack of control over their immediate surroundings mean juveniles have a greater claim than adults to be forgiven for failing to escape negative influences in their whole environment. The reality that juveniles still struggle to define their identity means it is less supportable to conclude that even a heinous crime committed by a juvenile is evidence of irretrievably depraved character. From a moral standpoint it would be misguided to equate the failings of a minor with those of an adult, for a greater possibility exists that a minor’s character deficiencies will be reformed. Indeed, the relevance of youth as a mitigating factor derives from the fact that the signature qualities of youth are transient; as individuals mature, the impetuousness and recklessness that may dominate in younger years can subside.
Id. at 570 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
In 2011, the Supreme Court went a step further in Graham, holding that the Eighth
Amendment prohibits the imposition of a life sentence without parole2 for nonhomicide offenses

2

“[L]ife without parole is ‘the second most severe penalty permitted by law.’”

Graham, 560 U.S. at 69 (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U.S. 957, 1001 (1991)).

9

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 10 of 20
committed by juvenile offenders. Graham, 560 U.S. at 74. Reiterating the differences between
juveniles and adults identified in Roper, and explaining that “[l]ife without parole is an
especially harsh punishment for a juvenile,” the Court determined that, “none of the goals of
penal sanctions that have been recognized as legitimate—retribution, deterrence, incapacitation,
and rehabilitation—provides an adequate justification” for a life without parole sentence for a
juvenile nonhomicide offender. Id. at 71–74. In further articulating the constitutional
requirements for juvenile offenders in such circumstances, the Court held:
A State is not required to guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide crime. What the State must do, however, is give defendants like Graham some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. It is for the State, in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance. It bears emphasis, however, that while the Eighth Amendment forbids a State from imposing a life without parole sentence on a juvenile nonhomicide offender, it does not require the State to release that offender during his natural life. Those who commit truly horrifying crimes as juveniles may turn out to be irredeemable, and thus deserving of incarceration for the duration of their lives. The Eighth Amendment does not foreclose the possibility that persons convicted of nonhomicide crimes committed before adulthood will remain behind bars for life. It does forbid States from making the judgment at the outset that those offenders never will be fit to reenter society. . . . Terrance Graham’s sentence [of life without parole] guarantees he will die in prison without any meaningful opportunity to obtain release, no matter what he might do to demonstrate that the bad acts he committed as a teenager are not representative of his true character, even if he spends the next half century attempting to atone for his crimes and learn from his mistakes. The State has denied him any chance to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed when he was a child in the eyes of the law. This the Eighth Amendment does not permit. . . . The Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide. A State need not guarantee the offender eventual release, but if it imposes a sentence of life it must provide him or her with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end of that term.
Id. at 75, 79, 82.
10

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 11 of 20

Finally, in 2012, the Supreme Court added one additional restriction on life without parole sentencing of juveniles. In Miller v. Alabama, the Court held that the Eighth Amendment forbids subjecting a juvenile to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment without parole in homicide cases, finding that “[s]uch mandatory penalties, by their nature, preclude a sentencer from taking account of an offender’s age and the wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to it.”3 132 S. Ct. 2455, 2467 (2012). Thus, under Miller, a State may ultimately impose a life without parole sentence against a juvenile convicted of homicide, but only after the sentencer has the opportunity to consider all the mitigating circumstances, including the offenders age and age-related characteristics. Id. at 2475. Though technically permissible, the Supreme Court emphasized that, “given all we have said in Roper, Graham, and this decision about children’s diminished culpability and heightened capacity for change, we think appropriate occasions for sentencing juveniles to this harshest possible penalty will be uncommon.” See id. at 2469 (“This is especially so because of the great difficulty we noted in Roper and Graham of distinguishing at this early age between ‘the juvenile offender whose crime reflects unfortunate yet transient immaturity, and the rare juvenile offender whose crime reflects irreparable corruption.’” (quoting Roper, 543 U.S. at 573; Graham, 560 U.S. at 68)).
In 2013, the Iowa Supreme Court arguably expanded the protections available to juvenile offenders when it determined that Miller-type protections, i.e., individualized sentencing

3

The Court articulated the teachings of Graham and Roper in recapping the

“wealth of characteristics and circumstances attendant to [youth],” but also explained that

consideration must be given to a juvenile’s home life, his role in the homicide offense, the

impact of familial and peer pressure on the circumstances of the offense, and the likelihood of

rehabilitation. Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2468. As well, the court noted that youth often have

difficulties not experienced by adults in dealing with police and prosecutors and in assisting their

attorneys. Id.

11

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 12 of 20
evaluations, are constitutionally required in cases where a juvenile is sentenced to either a de facto life sentence, or to a term of years that would effectively deprive him of a meaningful opportunity for release on parole during his lifetime. See State v. Null, 836 N.W.2d 41, 72–76 (Iowa 2013) (holding that Miller’s protections are fully applicable to “a lengthy term-of-years sentence” and require judges sentencing juveniles to recognize: (1) that children are constitutionally different than adults and cannot be held to the same standard of culpability in sentencing; (2) that children are more capable of change than adults; and (3) that lengthy prison sentences without the possibility of parole for juveniles are appropriate, “if at all, only in rare or uncommon cases”); State v. Pearson, 836 N.W.2d 88, 96 (Iowa 2013) (finding that Miller’s reasoning applies “equally to [a juvenile’s] sentence of thirty-five years without the possibility of parole” and that the Iowa Constitution “requires an individualized sentencing hearing where [a term of years sentence is imposed that] effectively deprive[s] [a juvenile] of any chance of an earlier release and the possibility of leading a more normal adult life”); State v. Ragland, 836 N.W.2d 107, 121–22 (Iowa 2013) (finding that the “same motivation behind the mandates of Miller applies to [the sixty year mandatory minimum] sentence in this case or any sentence that is the practical equivalent to life without parole.”). The Iowa Supreme Court extended protections for juveniles even more in 2014, holding that “all mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment for youthful offenders are unconstitutional under the cruel and unusual punishment clause” of the Iowa Constitution. State v. Lyle, 854 N.W.2d 378, 400 (Iowa 2014) (“Mandatory minimum sentences for juveniles are simply too punitive for what we know about juveniles.”).
12

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 13 of 20
B. Iowa Parole Provisions Iowa Code § 906.4(1) provides that a “parole . . . shall be ordered only for the best interest of society and the offender, not as an award of clemency.” Pursuant to the statute, the IBOP “shall release on parole . . . any person whom it has the power to so release, when in its opinion there is reasonable probability that the person can be released without detriment to the community or to the person.” Id. An individual’s release is deemed not to be a detriment to the community if the “person is able and willing to fulfill the obligations of a law-abiding citizen, in the board’s determination.” Id. The IBOP must “establish and implement a plan by which the board systematically reviews the status of each person who has been committed [to the IDOC] and considers the person’s prospects for parole or work release.” Iowa Code § 906.5(1)(a). Defendants point out that the Iowa Administrative Code does not require in-person parole reviews; rather, parole reviews may be conducted through inmate case file reviews. Defs.’ Br. (Clerk’s No. 2-1) at 4 (citing Iowa Admin. Code § 205.8.6(1) (providing that the IBOP “may review the records of an inmate . . . and consider the inmate’s prospects for parole . . . at any time”)); see also Iowa Admin Code § 205.8.13 (“Case review procedure. The board or board panel may consider the inmate’s records and other information with respect to history, current situation, parole and work release prospects, and other pertinent matters. A case review may take place at any time and is in addition to any other required review.”). Factors to be considered in parole decisions include previous criminal record, nature and circumstances of the offense, recidivism record, convictions and behavior that indicates a propensity for violence, participation in programming, mental health evaluations, length of time served, evidence of institutional misconduct, risk assessments,
13

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 14 of 20
and any other information deemed relevant to the parole decision. Iowa Admin. Code § 205.8.10(1).
C. Analysis 1. Cruel and unusual punishment. Defendants first argue that Plaintiff cannot establish that his sentence is cruel and unusual under either the Federal or the State Constitution. According to Defendants, Plaintiff is claiming an “entitlement to more than just parole eligibility and the normal review processes provided for by Iowa law . . . [Plaintiff is claiming an entitlement to] some sort of enhanced or super parole release review, above and beyond that given to other parole eligible inmates.” Defs.’ Br. at 7. Defendants argue that Plaintiff is not entitled to any sort of enhanced parole review, or even to parole review different from that provided to adult offenders, because Graham is “limited to sentencing procedures” and is inapplicable to “release or parole considerations.” Id. at 7–8 (“[T]he only guarantee to which [Plaintiff] is entitled under the Graham decision is that he not be given a life sentence at the outset.”). The Court disagrees with Defendants that Graham has no applicability outside the context of a juvenile’s initial sentencing. While Defendants are correct that the State has no obligation to guarantee Plaintiff release during his lifetime, Graham explicitly held that, “[w]hat the State must do . . . is give [juvenile nonhomicide offenders] some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” Graham, 560 U.S. at 75. It is axiomatic that a juvenile offender could only prove increased maturity and rehabilitation warranting release from custody at some time well after a sentence is imposed. See id. at 79 (stating that the Eighth Amendment does not permit a State to deny a juvenile offender the
14

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 15 of 20
chance “to later demonstrate that he is fit to rejoin society based solely on a nonhomicide crime that he committed while he was a child in the eyes of the law”). In Iowa, such an opportunity could only reasonably exist during parole review due to Iowa’s indeterminate sentencing scheme. As Plaintiff aptly points out, the sentencing judge was required by statute to sentence Plaintiff to life without the possibility of parole because Plaintiff was convicted of a Class A felony. Following Graham, Plaintiff’s sentence was modified to life with the possibility of parole. Like the initial sentencing judge, however, the judge who modified Plaintiff’s sentence had no discretion whatsoever in the sentence to be imposed. Rather, the ultimate length of Plaintiff’s prison sentence will be determined by the IBOP, because it alone has the authority to grant Plaintiff release. See State v. Peckenschneider, 236 N.W.2d 344, 347 (Iowa 1975) (“In 1907 . . . the responsibility of determining the length of a prison sentence was shifted from the trial court to the board of parole.” (citing State v. Cupples, 260 Iowa 1192, 1196 (1967)). Thus, it appears clear that, at least under the facts of this case, the responsibility for ensuring that Plaintiff receives his constitutionally mandated “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” lies squarely with IBOP and the other State-actor Defendants.
Defendants next contend that the procedures employed by the IBOP in conducting a case file review of Plaintiff’s eligibility for parole were constitutionally adequate under Graham. Defendants seem to imply that the IBOP naturally considered all factors articulated in Iowa Administrative Code § 205.8.10(1), and that this “totality of the circumstances” review necessarily included consideration of Plaintiff’s age at the time of the offense, as well as an evaluation of his maturation and rehabilitation since that time. Defs.’ Br. at 8–9 (arguing that the
15

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 16 of 20
IBOP is not prohibited from taking into consideration “all relevant information” in its parole decisions and that age at the time of the offense “is of limited value, by itself” in the determination). Thus, according to Defendants, by “evaluating the totality of the circumstances, the IBOP acted well within its discretion to deny [Plaintiff] parole when, in its informed opinion, [Plaintiff’s] release was not in the best interests of society.” Id.
The Court cannot conclude as a matter of law at this early stage of the proceedings that the IBOP’s parole review procedures either are or are not compliant with the constitutional mandate of Graham when applied to juveniles. Even if it could make such a determination, the Court cannot simply presume that such procedures were actually employed by the IBOP in this case. In reviewing Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court must “accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint,” and must draw “all reasonable inferences . . . in favor of the plaintiff.” Schaaf, 517 F.3d at 549. Applying that principle here, the relevant “facts” before the Court are: (1) that the IBOP “fail[ed] to take account of [Plaintiff’s] youth and demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation” when it “summarily denied his parole” (Pet. ¶¶ 20–23); (2) that the IBOP denied Plaintiff’s parole based solely on the “seriousness of the offense. No other grounds were considered” (Pet. ¶ 24); and (3) that the IBOP’s “current policies . . . fail to take into account . . . youth at the time of [the] offense and . . . demonstrated maturity and development.” Accepted as true, these allegations state a plausible § 1983 claim that Defendants, acting under color of state law, have wrongfully deprived and continue to deprive Plaintiff of a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,” thereby violating his right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment under the Federal and State Constitutions.
16

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 17 of 20
Defendants also argue that Plaintiff cannot premise his cruel and unusual punishment claim on the IDOC’s policy prohibiting him from taking sex offender treatment classes because inmates have no constitutional right to any particular court or class of treatment while in prison. Defs.’ Br. at 9 (citing Stewart v. Davies, 954 F.2d 515, 516 (8th Cir. 1992) and Wishon v. Gammon, 978 F.2d 446, 450 (8th Cir. 1992)). Plaintiff, however, does not claim that he is directly deprived of a constitutional right by virtue of being denied sex offender treatment; rather, Plaintiff claims that the IDOC’s policy results in a de facto denial of his right to a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release” pursuant to Graham. More specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the IDOC’s policy on participating in sex offender treatment categorically excludes Plaintiff from participation because he does not have a defined discharge date. Pet. ¶¶ 29–30. Because the IDOC and IBOP require sex offender treatment as a condition of parole eligibility, Plaintiff is, in effect, denied not just of a meaningful opportunity for parole; he is denied any opportunity for parole. Id. at 29–31. Considering the current procedural posture of the case , the Court agrees with Plaintiff that he has presented at least a plausible § 1983 claim that Defendants’ policy in this regard results in a de facto life without parole sentence that is prohibited by Graham and its progeny.
For the reasons stated above, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Federal Eighth Amendment and State Article I § 17 claims is denied.
2. Due process. Plaintiff’s due process claims are premised on the same conduct by Defendants that Plaintiff asserts in support of his cruel and unusual punishment claims, i.e., that Defendants’ parole review process and policies regarding participation in sex offender treatment classes
17

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 18 of 20

operate to deny him a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation.” According to Defendants, these allegations fail to support a § 1983 due process cause of action for many of the same reasons Defendants claim they fail to support a § 1983 cruel and unusual punishment claim. Defendants additionally contend that Plaintiff’s due process claims fail because Plaintiff simply “wants a parole,” but case law establishes that Plaintiff “has no constitutional right to receive a parole or work release” because Plaintiff has no protected liberty interest in obtaining a parole.4 Defs.’ Br. at 10–13 (“[Plaintiff] therefore has no liberty interest subject to due process protection that attaches to his mere hope of receiving a parole. In the absence of a protected liberty interest, the only process that is due those seeking early release in Iowa are those procedures specifically enumerated by the statutes or rules governing the parole decision-making process. Thus, [Plaintiff] is not permitted to assail the propriety of the parole system itself; any attack must be limited to the State’s failure to adhere to protocol in its application.” (quotation marks omitted, citing Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979); Schreiber v. State, 666 N.W. 2d 127, 130 (Iowa 2003); State v. Cronkhite, 613 N.W. 2d 664, 668 (Iowa 2000); State v. Wright, 309 N.W.2d 891, 894 (Iowa 1981)).
While Defendant is no doubt correct that Plaintiff ultimately “wants a parole,” Plaintiff’s claims in this action are in actuality much broader. Plaintiff is not, as Defendant seems to presume, claiming that Defendants applied fair and appropriate parole policies to him and reached the wrong conclusion on whether to grant parole. Rather, Plaintiff asserts that Graham

4

The Due Process clause only “applies when government action deprives a person

of liberty or property.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7

(1979).

18

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 19 of 20

guarantees him a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,” and that Defendants’ existing procedures and policies deprive him of the “meaningful opportunity” to which he is entitled. Though subtle, the distinction is important. In Greenholtz, the Supreme Court determined that when a state “holds out the possibility of parole” it “provides no more than a mere hope that the benefit will be obtained”; such a “general interest” is “no more substantial than the inmate’s hope that he will not be transferred to another prison, a hope which is not protected by due process.” 442 U.S. at 11. The present case is distinguishable because although Graham stops short of guaranteeing parole, it does provide the juvenile offender with substantially more than a possibility of parole or a “mere hope” of parole; it creates a categorical entitlement to “demonstrate maturity and reform,” to show that “he is fit to rejoin society,” and to have a “meaningful opportunity for release.” See Graham, 560 U.S. at 79. Because Plaintiff’s Petition clearly alleges facts that, if true, would support a conclusion that Defendants have denied him process to which he is due, namely a “meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation,” Plaintiff has adequately stated a plausible due process claim and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss must be denied.5 See Matthews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 (1976) (“the fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” (quoting Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552 (1965)).
3. Novel constitutional claims. The Court agrees with Plaintiff that the claims presented in this action are novel ones,

5

The Court notes that the Iowa Constitution arguably provides an even stronger

basis for Plaintiff’s due process claims that does the Federal Constitution, given the Iowa

Supreme Court’s rulings in Null, Ragland, Pearson, and Lyle.

19

Case 4:13-cv-00510-RP-CFB Document 18 Filed 01/15/15 Page 20 of 20
particularly given the recency of Graham and the correspondent lack of case law analyzing its scope and applicability. Case law and legal commentators both encourage the denial of Rule 12(b)(6) motions where novel or unique theories are presented. See, e.g., McGary v. City of Portland, 386 F.3d 1259, 1270 (9th Cir. 2004) (“Court[s] should be especially reluctant to dismiss on the basis of the pleadings when the asserted theory of liability is novel or extreme, since it is important that new legal theories be explored and assayed in the light of actual facts rather than a pleader’s suppositions.” (quoting 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure: Civil § 1357, at 601–03 (1969))); Igartua-De La Rosa v. United States, 417 F.3d 145, 192 (1st Cir. 2005) (same). Accordingly, given that Plaintiff has asserted important constitutional claims which present issues of first impression, the Court finds that discovery and full consideration of the case on the merits is warranted.
IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated herein, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Clerk’s No. 2) is DENIED in its entirety. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this _15th_day of January, 2015.
20

 </s> Case: 4:13-cv-510 As of: 11/02/2017 03:51 PM CDT 1 of 6
TERMED,1983pr,REMOVAL
U.S. District Court Southern District of Iowa (Central) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:13−cv−00510−RP−CFB

Greiman v. Hodges et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt Referred to: Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer Case in other court: IASD, 4−17−cv−192
Polk County District Court, CVCV046704 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/23/2013 Date Terminated: 10/04/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Blair J Greiman

represented by John Scot Allen COLLEGE OF LAW LEGAL CLINIC UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA CITY, IA 52242−1113 319 335 9023 Fax: 319 335 5445 Email: law−clinic−efiles@uiowa.edu LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John B Whiston COLLEGE OF LAW LEGAL CLINIC UNIVERSITY OF IOWA IOWA CITY, IA 52242−1113 319 335 9023 Fax: 319 353 9023 Email: law−legal−clinic@uiowa.edu TERMINATED: 06/28/2016

V. Defendant John F. Hodges in his Official Capacity as Chair of the Iowa Board of Parole
Defendant Iowa Board of Parole

represented by John R Lundquist ATTORNEY GENERAL OF IOWA HOOVER STATE OFFICE BLDG 1305 EAST WALNUT STREET DES MOINES, IA 50319 515 281 3658 Fax: 515 281 4209 Email: jlundqui@ag.state.ia.us LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
William A Hill IOWA ATTORNEY GENERAL −− Des Moines 1305 E WALNUT STREET DES MOINES, IA 50319 515 281 6162 Fax: 281 4902 Email: whill@ag.state.ia.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by John R Lundquist (See above for address)

Case: 4:13-cv-510 As of: 11/02/2017 03:51 PM CDT 2 of 6

LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William A Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
John R. Baldwin in his Official Capacity as Director of the Iowa Department of Corrections

represented by John R Lundquist (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William A Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Iowa Department of Corrections jointly and severally

represented by John R Lundquist (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

William A Hill (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/04/2017 10/04/2017 10/03/2017 09/13/2017
06/15/2017 05/31/2017 05/31/2017
05/31/2017 05/26/2017

# Docket Text
***Civil Case Terminated. (don, ) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
44 ORDER dismissing case without prejudice.. Signed by Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt on 10/4/2017. (don, ) (Entered: 10/04/2017)
43 STIPULATION of Dismissal Without Prejudice by Blair J Greiman. (Allen, John) (Entered: 10/03/2017)
42 TEXT ORDER rescheduling Final Pretrial Conference. The Final Pretrial Conference set for October 4, 2017, is rescheduled. The Final Pretrial Conference IS NOW set for 10/6/2017 at 10:15 AM in Phone Hearing before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. Counsel shall call the Court's conference line at 515−284−6266 and enter code 116266 at the prompt. Counsel shall comply with the requirements for Final Pretrial Conferences previously set forth. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 9/13/2017. (mlr) (Entered: 09/13/2017)
41 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by Blair J Greiman. (Allen, John) (Entered: 06/15/2017)
40 ORDER resetting Final Pretrial Conference for 10/4/2017 @ 11:30 am and Bench Trial for 10/16/2017 @ 9:00. Joint Status Report to be filed by 6/15/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 5/31/2017. (don, ) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Status Report due by 6/15/2017. Bench Trial set for 10/16/2017 09:00 AM in Des Moines − Room 455 − 4th Floor South before Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt. Final Pretrial Conference set for 10/4/2017 11:30 AM in Phone Hearing before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. (rmj) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
39 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer: Status Conference held on 5/31/2017. (ml) (Entered: 05/31/2017)
38 STATUS REPORT by Blair J Greiman. (Allen, John) (Entered: 05/26/2017)

Case: 4:13-cv-510 As of: 11/02/2017 03:51 PM CDT 3 of 6

05/04/2017
05/04/2017 04/24/2017 04/04/2017
03/07/2017
02/28/2017
06/28/2016 06/28/2016 06/28/2016 06/14/2016
06/10/2016 05/17/2016
03/02/2016

37 TEXT ORDER: A Status Conference was held May 4, 2017. The next Status Conference will be held on 5/31/2017 at 11:00 AM in Phone Hearing before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. Counsel shall call the Court's conference line at 515−284−6266 and enter code 116266 at the prompt. A Joint Agenda listing issues to be discussed at the Status Conference, shall be filed by May 26, 2017. If counsel believe there are no issues to be discussed, they shall request that it be continued. Two−day bench trial remains set for 9/11/17. Final Pretrial Conference remains set for 10:00 a.m. on August 24, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 5/4/2017. (mlr) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
36 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer: Status Conference held on 5/4/2017. (tae, ) (Entered: 05/04/2017)
35 STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report by Blair J Greiman. (Allen, John) (Entered: 04/24/2017)
34 TEXT ORDER: Due to scheduling conflicts on the Court's docket, the Status Conference set for April 26, 2017, is continued. The Status Conference is now set for 5/4/2017 10:00 AM in Phone Hearing before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. Counsel shall call the Court's conference line at 515−284−6266 and enter code 116266 at the prompt. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 4/4/2017. (mlr) (Entered: 04/04/2017)
33 TEXT ORDER re 32 Status Conference held February 28, 2017. The next Status Conference is set for April 26, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. using the Court's meet−me conference line. Counsel shall call 515−284−6266 and enter code 116266 at the prompt. A Joint Agenda listing issues to be discussed shall be filed on or before April 24, 2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 3/7/2017. (mlr) (Entered: 03/07/2017)
32 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer: Status Conference held on 2/28/2017. Discovery Deadline 5/15/2017. Dispositive Motion Deadline 6/15/2017. Status Report due by 4/24/2017. Status Conference set for 4/26/2017 09:30 AM in Phone Hearing before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. Final pretrial remains set for August 24, 2017 at 10:00 am. Trial will remain for September 11, 2017 scheduled for 2 days. (cc) (Entered: 02/28/2017)
31 TEXT ORDER granting 30 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney John B Whiston terminated. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 6/28/2016. (mlr) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
30 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Blair J Greiman.Motions referred to Celeste F. Bremer. Responses due by 7/15/2016 (Whiston, John) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
29 NOTICE of Appearance by John Scot Allen on behalf of Blair J Greiman (Allen, John) (Entered: 06/28/2016)
28 ORDER to continue trial; Discovery Deadline 3/15/2017. Dispositive Motion Deadline 4/14/2017. Bench Trial set for 9/11/2017 09:00 AM in Des Moines − Room 455 − 4th Floor South before Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/24/2017 10:00 AM by Phone Hearing. Status Conference set for 2/28/2017 10:00 AM by Phone Hearing.. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 6/14/2016. (mlp, ) (Entered: 06/14/2016)
27 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer: Status Conference held on 6/10/2016. (dv, ) (Entered: 06/10/2016)
26 TEXT ORDER re 25 Order on Motion for Extension of R16/Scheduling Order Deadlines. Due to scheduling conflicts on the Court's docket, the Status Conference IS NOW set for 6/10/2016 at 10:30 AM in Phone Hearing before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. Counsel shall call the Court's AT&T Conference line at 1−866−590−5055 and enter code 7013731 at the prompt. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 5/17/2016. (mlr) (Entered: 05/17/2016)
Trial set for 7/18/16 and final pretrial conference set for 7/6/16 are canceled and will be reset at a later date 25 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 3/2/2016. (mlr) (Entered: 03/02/2016)

Case: 4:13-cv-510 As of: 11/02/2017 03:51 PM CDT 4 of 6

03/02/2016 03/02/2016
02/12/2016 06/10/2015
06/05/2015 02/26/2015 02/02/2015 02/02/2015
01/29/2015 01/15/2015 09/03/2014
09/03/2014

Status Conference set for 6/14/2016 10:30 AM in Phone Hearing before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. Counsel shall call the Court's conference line at 515−284−6266 and enter code 116266 at the prompt 25 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 3/2/2016. (mlr) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
25 TEXT ORDER granting 24 Motion for Extension of Scheduling Order Deadlines. Discovery Deadline 5/2/2016. Dispositive Motion Deadline 6/1/2016. Trial set for July 18, 2016, and Final Pretrial Conference set for July 6, 2016 are canceled, and will be reset after ruling on the dispositive motion. If no dispositive motion is filed, a Status Conference to discuss setting a new trial and final pretrial conference will be held at 10:30 a.m. on June 14, 2016, by telephone conference call. Counsel shall call the Court's conference line at 515−284−6266 and enter code 116266 at the prompt. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 3/2/2016. (mlr) (Entered: 03/02/2016)
24 Third MOTION for Extension of Time For Scheduling Order/R16 Deadlines of Discovery, dispositive motions, continue trial date by Blair J Greiman.Motions referred to Celeste F. Bremer. Responses due by 2/29/2016 (Whiston, John) (Entered: 02/12/2016)
23 ORDER granting 22 Motion to Continue Trial, Final Pretrial, and discovery and dispositive motion deadlines. Five−day Bench Trial set for 7/18/2016 09:00 AM in Des Moines − Room 265 − 2nd Floor before Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt. Final Pretrial Conference set for 7/6/2016 10:00 AM in Des Moines − Room 435 − 4th Floor before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. Discovery Deadline 2/15/2016. Dispositive Motion Deadline 3/15/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 6/10/2015. (mlr) (Entered: 06/10/2015)
22 MOTION to Continue Motion to Extend Time for Discovery, Dispositive Motions, and Continue Trial Date by Blair J Greiman.Motions referred to Celeste F. Bremer. Responses due by 6/22/2015 (Whiston, John) (Entered: 06/05/2015)
21 ANSWER to Complaint / Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief by John R. Baldwin, John F. Hodges, Iowa Board of Parole, Iowa Department of Corrections.(Lundquist, John) (Entered: 02/26/2015)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 6/8/2015. Dispositive Motion Deadline due by 7/8/2015. Bench Trial set for 1/11/2016 09:00 AM in Des Moines Courthouse before Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt. Final Pretrial Conference set for 12/29/2015 10:30 AM in Des Moines − Room 435 − 4th Floor before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. (mlr) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
20 TEXT ORDER granting 19 Motion for Extension of Time. Five−day Bench trial continued to January 11, 2016, before Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt. Final Pretrial conference continued to 10:30 a.m. on December 29, 2015, before the undersigned. Counsel shall comply with the requirements for final pretrial conference previously set forth. Discovery deadlne extended to June 8, 2015. Dispositive Motion deadline extended to July 8, 2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 2/2/2015. (mlr) (Entered: 02/02/2015)
19 MOTION for Extension of Time to File For Discovery, Dispositive Motions, and Continue Trial Date by Blair J Greiman.Motions referred to Celeste F. Bremer. Responses due by 2/17/2015 (Whiston, John) (Entered: 01/29/2015)
18 ORDER denying 2 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt on 1/15/2015. (ndj) (Entered: 01/15/2015)
17 CAMERAS PILOT PROJECT: NOTIFICATION REGARDING VIDEO RECORDING − Parties should complete Form E, Party Response Regarding Video Recording, and return it to the Clerk's Office no later than 7 (seven) days before the scheduled hearing. Do NOT file Form E in CM/ECF. E−mail Form E to IASD_casemanagers@iasd.uscourts.gov. Notification and Party Response Forms Regarding Video Recording sent to Parties. (sc) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
16 ORDER adopting 13 PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN: Five−day Bench Trial set for 8/17/2015 09:00 AM in Des Moines − Room 265 − 2nd Floor before Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt. Final Pretrial Conference set for 8/4/2015 10:00 AM in Des Moines − Room 435 − 4th Floor before Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer. Add Parties due by 9/8/2014. Amended Pleadings due by 9/8/2014.

Case: 4:13-cv-510 As of: 11/02/2017 03:51 PM CDT 5 of 6

08/21/2014
08/12/2014
08/08/2014 08/01/2014 06/25/2014 06/25/2014 06/24/2014
06/23/2014 04/01/2014 03/14/2014 03/14/2014 02/21/2014 02/21/2014 02/07/2014

Plaintiffs Expert Witness due by 11/7/2014. Defendants Expert Witness due by 12/8/2014. Plaintiffs Rebuttal Witness Deadline due by 1/8/2015. Discovery due by 2/9/2015. Dispositive Motion Deadline due by 3/9/2015. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 9/3/2014. (mlr) (Entered: 09/03/2014)
15 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt: Motion Hearing held on 8/21/2014 re 2 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Jason Carlstrom, Iowa Board of Parole, John R. Baldwin, Iowa Department of Corrections. (Court Reporter Kelli Mulcahy.) (ndj) (Entered: 08/21/2014)
14 All Parties in this case have consented to Video Recording of some or all proceedings in this case as part of the Cameras in Court Pilot Project. In−court proceedings will be video recorded. Motion Hearing set for 8/21/2014 10:00 AM in Des Moines − Room 265 − 2nd Floor − Video Proceeding before Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt. (sc) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
13 PROPOSED SCHEDULING ORDER AND DISCOVERY PLAN. (Whiston, John) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
12 ORDER GIVING NOTICE OF DISMISSAL Rule 16 Dismissal deadline set for 8/18/2014.. Signed by Clerk Marjorie Krahn on 8/1/2014. (dv, ) (Entered: 08/01/2014)
11 TEXT ORDER granting 10 Motion to Continue Motion Hearing set for 8/21/2014 10:00 AM in Des Moines − Room 265 − 2nd Floor before Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt.. Signed by Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt on 6/25/2014. (mlm, ) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
10 MOTION to Continue Hearing Set for 7/17/14 by Blair J Greiman.Motions referred to Celeste F. Bremer. Responses due by 7/14/2014 (Whiston, John) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
9 CAMERAS PILOT PROJECT: NOTIFICATION REGARDING VIDEO RECORDING − Parties should complete Form E, Party Response Regarding Video Recording, and return it to the Clerk's Office no later than 7 (seven) days before the scheduled hearing. Do NOT file Form E in CM/ECF. E−mail Form E to IASD_casemanagers@iasd.uscourts.gov. Notification and Party Response Forms Regarding Video Recording sent to Parties. (sc) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
8 TEXT ORDER Setting Hearing on Motion 2 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM : Motion Hearing set for 7/17/2014 10:00 AM in Des Moines − Room 265 − 2nd Floor before Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt. Signed by Senior Judge Robert W. Pratt on 6/23/2014. (ndj) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
7 RESPONSE to Motion re 2 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by Blair J Greiman. Replies due by 4/11/2014. (gk, ) (Entered: 04/01/2014)
6 TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 5 Motion to file overlength brief. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 3/14/2014. (pac) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
5 MOTION to file overlength brief by Blair J Greiman.Motions referred to Celeste F. Bremer. Responses due by 3/31/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support Resist Def's Rule 12(b)(6))(Whiston, John) (Entered: 03/14/2014)
4 TEXT ONLY ORDER granting 3 Motion for Extension of Time to File. Plaintiff's Resistance to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss shall be filed by 3/14/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Celeste F. Bremer on 2/21/2014. (pac) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
3 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Resistance to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss by Blair J Greiman.Motions referred to Celeste F. Bremer. Responses due by 3/10/2014 (Whiston, John) (Entered: 02/21/2014)
2 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by John R. Baldwin, Jason Carlstrom, Iowa Board of Parole, Iowa Department of Corrections. Responses due by 2/24/2014 (Attachments: # 1 Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss)(Lundquist, John) (Entered: 02/07/2014)

Case: 4:13-cv-510 As of: 11/02/2017 03:51 PM CDT 6 of 6

12/23/2013

1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Iowa Board of Parole, Jason Carlstrom, John R. Baldwin, Iowa Department of Corrections from Polk County District Court, case number CVCV046704. Filing fee paid in the amount of $ 400, receipt number 0863−2209078., filed by Iowa Board of Parole, Jason Carlstrom, John R. Baldwin, Iowa Department of Corrections. Rule 16 Notice of Dismissal set for 3/24/2014. (Attachments: # 1 State Court Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, # 2 State Court Original Notice, # 3 Local Rule 81(a) Removal List, # 4 State Court Appearance, # 5 State Court Acceptance of Service)(Lundquist, John) (Entered: 12/23/2013)


[CONTENT] November 22, 2013 | twenty-five years | sixteen | the U.S. District Court | the Southern District of Iowa ||| the Iowa Board of Parole | the Iowa Department of Corrections | 42 | 1983 ||| the University of Iowa Law School Clinic | Eighth ||| sixteen |||  ||| Graham | the Supreme Court | the Eighth Amendment | 2011 | 2034 | 2010 ||| State ||| October 15, 2010 | Iowa State Court ||| Carroll ||| twenty-five years |||  ||| nearly thirty years | only one |||  ||| the Department of Corrections ||| IDOC | two years |||  |||  ||| February 7, 2014 ||| January 15, 2015 | Robert Pratt ||| Eighth ||| 79 | 933 ||| more than two years ||| June 15, 2017 ||| October 3, 2017 | the next day |||  |||  [SUMMARY] On November 22, 2013, a man that had been in custody for twenty-five years for a crime committed when he was sixteen filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa.  The plaintiff sued the Iowa Board of Parole and the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.  The plaintiff, represented by the University of Iowa Law School Clinic, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the parole board’s actions and policies violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. 
 
Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that he was being denied the opportunity for meaningful release while he was being detained under a mandatory adult life sentence for the crime he committed when he was sixteen. The plaintiff was not attempting to invalidate his life sentence, rather he was requesting a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on his youth at the time the crime was committed combined with his demonstrated rehabilitation and maturity during the time he had already spent in prison. In <i>Graham v. Florida</i>, the Supreme Court stated that “Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide” and to sentence otherwise was cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2034 (2010). Under <i>Graham</i>, the State is required to give juvenile offenders who did not commit homicide a meaningful opportunity to obtain release. 

The plaintiff had previously filed a motion to correct his illegal sentence on October 15, 2010 in a separate lawsuit, filed in Iowa State Court. The motion was granted by Judge Carroll, who resentenced the plaintiff to life with eligibility for parole.  The amended sentence established that the plaintiff was then eligible for parole as he had served past the statutory minimum of twenty-five years.  The plaintiff applied for parole several times and was summarily denied based on the grounds of the seriousness of the offense he committed.  No other grounds, such as the fact that he was an exemplary inmate for nearly thirty years and had only one minor infraction during that time, were considered during the parole review.  

In addition to the policies that failed to take into account the plaintiff’s youth at the time and demonstrated maturity over the course of imprisonment, the parole board also required that the plaintiff take sex offender courses due to the nature of his crime. The plaintiff attempted to enroll in these courses, but was denied because of the Department of Corrections’ enrollment policy. Under IDOC policy, an inmate was only eligible to take the course if there were within two years of their date of discharge. Since inmates serving a life sentence lack a date of discharge, they are permanently unable to enroll in the classes required by the parole board.  As a result, the plaintiff claimed that the IDOC had failed to implement any policies that would give the plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on rehabilitation and demonstrated maturity.  

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 7, 2014. On January 15, 2015, the court (Judge Robert Pratt) denied the defendant’s motion. The court found that the plaintiff did, in fact, state a plausible claim that the defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him a meaningful opportunity to obtain release, denying the motion in its entirety. 79 F.Supp.3d 933.

The parties then engaged in discovery for more than two years. 

According to a status report filed on June 15, 2017, the plaintiff was granted work release status.

On October 3, 2017, the parties filed stipulation of dismissal of all claims without prejudice, which the court granted the next day. No reasons were provided. The case is now closed.