Fifth Circuit panel finds protected liberty interest for Louisiana prisoner seeking parole reinstatement

A helpful commenter flagged a notable new panel ruling from the Fifth Circuit handed down last week.  Though the factual particulars are complicated and critical in Galbraith v. Hooper, No. 22-30159 (5th Cir. Oct. 23, 2023) (available here), folks who litigate over parole or other back-end procedures in the criminal justice system may find a lot of aspects of the opinion interesting and important.  Here is how the 24-page opinion begins and ends:

Samuel Galbraith, a Louisiana prisoner, sued the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Parole (“Parole Board”), seeking to have his parole reinstated on the grounds that its rescission just prior to its effective date violated his due process rights. The district court agreed with Galbraith and ordered his release on parole within 30 days, subject to the original conditions of his parole. On appeal, the Parole Board’s arguments include that there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole. Based on Louisiana’s parole statutes, we hold that, on the facts of this case, a liberty interest did arise. We AFFIRM….

[Quoting magistrate’s ruling: “]While it is true that Louisiana’s parole statutes do not create a liberty interest in the granting of parole, once parole has been granted, the Parole Board’s discretion to rescind that parole was statutorily limited to an objective, fact-based finding that Petitioner had either: (1) violated the terms of his work release, or (2) engaged in misconduct.  Neither statutory basis was even argued, much less established in April 2017.  Under the Fourteenth Amendment, Petitioner was entitled to notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard before rescinding his parole, which did not occur.[“]

Galbraith’s parole was ostensibly rescinded because of an alleged problem with notice to a victim. He was notified of this reason on May 1, 2017, 10 days after his parole was rescinded. At the time, that was not a permissible reason to rescind his grant of parole.

Therefore, Galbraith’s parole was improperly rescinded.