UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

No. 5:10-ct-2272-BO

SHAUN ANTONIO HAYDEN,

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

)

PAUL G. BUTLER,

)

)

Defendant. )

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

INTRODUCTION 1. This action for declaratory and injunctive relief is brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff Shaun Hayden is an individual who was charged and tried as an adult for crimes committed when he was a juvenile of fifteen years of age. Mr. Hayden was punished by an adult sentence of life imprisonment, and he is currently detained without a meaningful opportunity for parole in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 2. Juvenile offenders, as compared to adults, have lessened culpability and are less deserving of the harshest punishments. They lack maturity and possess an underdeveloped sense of responsibility, making them more vulnerable or susceptible to negative influences and outside pressures. 3. Nevertheless, under North Carolina law, juveniles may be charged, tried, and sentenced as if they were adults without consideration of their juvenile status, including their reduced culpability and unique capacity for change and rehabilitation as compared to adults.

1 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 1 of 12

4. Whenever juveniles are sentenced to life imprisonment—one of the harshest available punishments—the U.S. Constitution requires that they be granted a meaningful opportunity for parole so that they may have the chance to demonstrate their increased maturity and rehabilitation.
5. Plaintiff does not challenge his judgment of conviction and does not seek to invalidate his life sentence; rather Plaintiff seeks an order that the N.C. Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission afford him, as a person sentenced to life imprisonment for offenses committed before he was eighteen years old, a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on real, non-arbitrary criteria that bear upon his degree of maturity and rehabilitation. JURISDICTION
6. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which authorizes federal courts to decide cases concerning federal questions, and by 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a), which authorizes federal courts to hear civil rights cases, and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, the Declaratory Judgment Act. VENUE
7. Venue is proper in this Court, as the N.C. Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission is located in Raleigh, North Carolina (Wake County), and Plaintiff is incarcerated at Lumberton Correctional Institution, in Lumberton, North Carolina (Robeson County), both of which are within the Eastern District of North Carolina PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Shaun A. Hayden was charged, convicted, and sentenced as an adult to a life sentence in Iredell County, North Carolina, for acts he committed when he was a fifteen-
2 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 2 of 12

year-old child. Plaintiff Hayden is currently in the custody of the N.C. Division of Adult Correction. He is imprisoned at the Lumberton Correctional Institution in Robeson County, North Carolina. He has served over 30 years in adult prison, and is eligible for parole. 9. Defendant Paul G. Butler is the chair of the N.C. Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission, located in Raleigh, North Carolina. Defendant Butler, along with his cocommissioners, exercises discretionary authority to release parole-eligible offenders from prison. Mr. Butler is sued in his official capacity.
FACTS Punishment of Juveniles in North Carolina
10. North Carolina is the only state in the United States that automatically treats all sixteenand seventeen-year-olds as adults in the criminal justice system.
11. Since 1919, even fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds charged with felonies in North Carolina may be transferred to superior court for treatment as though they were adult offenders. See 1919 N.C. Sess. Laws 247 (current version at N.C.G.S. § 7B-2200). In some cases, transfer is mandatory.
12. As of 1994, the minimum age of transfer out of the juvenile justice system was reduced to thirteen years. See N.C.G.S. § 7A-608 (1994).
13. North Carolina’s practice of treating children as young as thirteen as adults is at odds with the American Bar Association standards relating to juvenile delinquency, which recommends eighteen as the upper age limit of juvenile court jurisdiction.
3 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 3 of 12

14. This practice also conflicts with international standards, including the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which recommends eighteen as the dividing line between juvenile and adult criminal jurisdiction.
15. Though the State of North Carolina regularly prosecutes children as though they were adults, the State also recognizes a child’s relative lack of maturity and responsibility based on age in other areas of the law—by prohibiting juveniles from voting or registering to vote, entering into valid contracts, serving on juries, joining the armed forces, smoking tobacco, marrying without parental consent, leaving school, working full-time, or applying for a driver’s license without first undergoing youth-specific driver education classes.
16. Scientific and medical experts agree that the vast majority of youth who commit antisocial acts in their adolescence grow out of this behavior upon maturity.
17. As recognized by scientific and medical experts, the American Bar Association, the United Nations, many U.S. states, and the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Hayden, as a fifteenyear-old juvenile offender, was more vulnerable to adult influences and susceptible to peer pressure than an adult offender.
18. As recognized by scientific and medical experts, the American Bar Association, the United Nations, many U.S. states, and the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Hayden, as a fifteenyear-old juvenile offender, was more likely to act impetuously without regard for consequences as compared to an adult offender.
19. As recognized by scientific and medical experts, the American Bar Association, the United Nations, many U.S. states, and the U.S. Supreme Court, Mr. Hayden, as a fifteen-
4 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 4 of 12

year-old juvenile offender, has a greater capacity for change, growth, and rehabilitation as compared to an adult offender. 20. Mr. Hayden, as a fifteen-year-old juvenile offender, has a constitutional right to a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate his maturity and rehabilitation and thereby obtain parole release. North Carolina’s Sentencing & Parole Framework 21. The State of North Carolina vests the N.C. Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission (the “Commission”) with sole, discretionary authority to make decisions regarding parole. N.C.G.S. § 143B-720(a). 22. The Commission consists of four full-time members, appointed by the Governor to fouryear terms. N.C.G.S. § 143B-721(a)-(a2). 23. One of the members is designated by the Governor to serve as chair. Id. 24. In North Carolina, certain felony offenders sentenced to life imprisonment for crimes that occurred prior to September 30, 1994, may be considered for parole after 20 years in prison. This group includes Mr. Hayden. 25. In 1994, North Carolina eliminated the possibility of parole for felony offenders sentenced to life imprisonment under the Structured Sentencing Act (for crimes that occurred after September 30, 1994). 26. However, the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Graham v. Florida, 130 S.Ct. 2011 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. __ (2012), brought back the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders sentenced to life imprisonment, including for crimes that occurred after September 30, 1994.
5 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 5 of 12

27. Because North Carolina’s Structured Sentencing Act mandated a sentence of life without the possibility of parole for certain offenses, North Carolina enacted N.C.G.S. § 15A1340.19A et seq. in response to Miller v. Alabama. That law provides that juveniles convicted of those offenses may be sentenced to life with the possibility of parole after 25 years.
28. Regardless of whether an offender was sentenced before or after September 30, 1994, North Carolina statutes proscribe no criteria by which the Commission must evaluate an offender’s suitability for parole.
29. North Carolina statutes empower the Commission “to set up and establish rules and regulations in accordance with which prisoners eligible for parole consideration may have their cases reviewed.” N.C.G.S. § 148-57.
30. However, the Commission has published no “rules and regulations” governing how prisoners eligible for parole consideration may have their cases reviewed.
31. North Carolina statutes further empower the Commission to create a plan whereby it “determines parole eligibility.” Id.
32. However, the Commission has published no “plan” whereby it “determines parole eligibility.”
33. The Commission is not required by any statute, regulation, or rule to take into account any particular criteria, evidence, or standards in making its unreviewable parole decision.
34. The Commission’s decision-making authority is unbounded and is not subject to appeal. 35. The Commission members do not meet with any offenders prior to making its decisions
regarding parole.
6 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 6 of 12

36. The Commission members do not meet together about any offenders prior to making its decisions regarding parole.
37. The Commission members do not hold any hearings about any offenders prior to making its decisions regarding parole.
38. North Carolina’s parole regime grants unfettered discretion to the N.C. Parole and PostRelease Supervision Commission to make unreviewable parole decisions behind closed doors on the basis of any reason or no reason.
39. North Carolina’s parole regime utterly fails to take into consideration whether Mr. Hayden’s actions, committed as a juvenile, were a result of transient immaturity and whether he has been rehabilitated.
40. There is no legitimate penological justification for imposing a life sentence on Mr. Hayden, a juvenile offender, without affording him a meaningful opportunity for release wherein he may show his increased maturity and rehabilitation. Such a denial fails to serve any of the recognized objectives of punishment.
Shaun Hayden’s Term of Imprisonment 41. Mr. Hayden was born on October 6, 1966. 42. On April 29, 1982, May 23, 1982, and August 21, 1982, Mr. Hayden was fifteen years of age. On these dates, he committed multiple violent felonies. 43. On March 16, 1983, at the age of sixteen years, Plaintiff Hayden pled guilty to First Degree Burglary; Attempted Rape; Assault With a Deadly Weapon With Intent to Kill Inflicting Serious Injury Not Resulting in Death; First Degree Sexual Offense; Breaking and Entering; Larceny; Second Degree Sexual Offense; Attempted Second Degree Rape; and First Degree Rape.
7 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 7 of 12

44. The Superior Court consolidated Mr. Hayden’s offenses for judgment, and Mr. Hayden was sentenced to life imprisonment.
45. The North Carolina prison system offers inmates a variety of educational, vocational, and self-improvement courses.
46. Since entering prison, Mr. Hayden has successfully completed the following courses: a. General Education Degree (GED) b. Woodworking c. Carpentry d. Plumbing e. Small Engines Repair f. Brick Masonry g. Block Masonry h. Electrical Welding i. Gas Welding j. Basic Electricity k. Advanced Sewing l. Body Fender Repair m. Cooking n. Drug Alcohol Recovery Program (Levels I, II, and III) o. Sex Offender Accountability and Responsibility Program (SOAR) p. Human Resources Development q. Air Conditioning, Heating, & Refrigeration
8 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 8 of 12

47. The North Carolina prison maintains a tiered disciplinary system, with Class A disciplinary offenses being the most serious, and Class D disciplinary offenses the least serious.
48. While in prison, Mr. Hayden has not committed any Class A disciplinary offense since 1996, a period of over 17 years, nor has he committed any Class B disciplinary offense since 2000, a period of over 13 years. Over the last three years, Mr. Hayden has been entirely infraction-free.
49. As of 2002, Mr. Hayden has been eligible for parole. 50. Each year since 2002, with the exception of 2009, Mr. Hayden has received a pro forma
denial letter from the Commission. 51. In 2009, he received no letter at all. 52. As a result, Mr. Hayden wrote to the Commission complaining that he had not received a
denial letter. 53. In a letter dated January 26, 2010, Parole Case Analyst Karen L. Gregory responded to
Mr. Hayden’s letter. Ms. Gregory’s letter purported to include a copy of the Commission’s 2009 denial letter. 54. The purported 2009 denial letter is dated March 17, 2009, and lists “Anthony E. Rand” as Commission Chairman. 55. Mr. Rand did not assume the post of Commission Chairman until January 2010. 56. Mr. Hayden has never been informed what criteria or guidelines (if any) the Commission has taken into consideration in denying him parole twelve times. 57. Mr. Hayden has never been informed what evidence (if any) the Commission has reviewed in denying him parole twelve times.
9 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 9 of 12

58. Mr. Hayden has never been interviewed by the Commission. 59. Mr. Hayden has never been given any list of expectations that he should strive to meet
prior to his next parole review. 60. Mr. Hayden has never been given any opportunity to demonstrate his increased maturity
or his rehabilitation to the Commission. 61. Mr. Hayden has never been given a “meaningful opportunity” to obtain parole release.
CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION EIGHTH AMENDMENT: CRUEL & UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT 62. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 61 above as if set forth fully herein. 63. Defendant’s current and continuing failure to afford Plaintiff, a juvenile offender, a meaningful opportunity for release upon demonstrating his 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 U.S. Constitution as incorporated by the Fourteenth Amendment and enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: DUE PROCESS 64. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 63 above as if set forth fully herein. 65. Defendant’s current and continuing failure to afford Plaintiff, a juvenile offender, a meaningful opportunity for release upon demonstrating his growth, maturity, and
10 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 10 of 12

rehabilitation, constitutes a denial of due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as enforceable through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for a judgment against Defendant and requests that this Court:

a. Issue a declaratory judgment that the continued incarceration of Plaintiff without affording him a meaningful opportunity to obtain release by demonstrating his maturity and rehabilitation, violates Plaintiff’s rights guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution and statutory law;
b. Order Defendants to provide Plaintiff with a meaningful opportunity to obtain release by demonstrating his maturity and rehabilitation;
c. Retain jurisdiction over this action until such time as the Court is satisfied that the unlawful laws, policies, practices, rules, acts, and omissions complained of herein have been satisfactorily rectified;
d. Award Plaintiff attorney fees and costs; e. Award such other relief as seems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

September 9, 2013

/s/ Elizabeth G Simpson Elizabeth G. Simpson N.C. Bar # 41596 Mary S. Pollard N.C. Bar #20081 Attorneys for Plaintiff N.C. Prisoner Legal Services P.O. Box 25397 Raleigh NC 27611 919-856-2200 919-856-2223 (fax) esimpson@ncpls.org

11 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 11 of 12

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on September 9, 2013, I electronically filed the foregoing with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following:
Mary Carla Hollis   N.C. Department of Justice   P.O. Box 629   Raleigh, NC 27602   919-716-6573   Fax: 919-716-0001   Email: mchollis@ncdoj.gov
/s/ Elizabeth G Simpson Elizabeth G. Simpson, N.C. Bar # 41596 Attorneys for Plaintiff N.C. Prisoner Legal Services P.O. Box 25397 Raleigh NC 27611 919-856-2200 919-856-2223 (fax) esimpson@ncpls.org
12 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 10 Filed 09/11/13 Page 12 of 12

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

No. 5:10-CT-3123-BO

SHAUN ANTONIO HAYDEN, Plaintiff,
v.
ALVIN KELLER, et al., Defendants.

)

)

)

)

ORDER

)

)

)

On July 15, 2010, plaintiff Shaun Antonio Hayden ("Hayden"), proceeding pro se, filed

this complaint in this case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Compl., D.E. 1. After denying

defendants' motion to dismiss the matter, the court directed that Hayden be represented by North

Carolina Prison Legal Services, Inc. ("NCPLS"). Hayden v. Keller, No. 10-HC-2272-BO,

Orders, D.E. 9 and 25; Notices, D.E. 10-15,22. NCPLS entered an appearance and, on

September 11, 2013, filed an amended complaint on Hayden's behalf pursuant to Section 1983.

Id.; Hayden, 5:10-CT-3123-BO, Am. Compl., D.E. 10 and Notice of Appearance, D. E. 13.

Cross motions for summary judgment are now before the court. Pl.'s Mot. Summ. J., D.E. 30;

Defs' Mot. Surnm. J., D.E. 36. On July 27, 2015, the court held a hearing on the pending

motions. Min., D.E. 49. Thereafter, the motions were supplemented with statistical data and

additional briefing. Orders, D.E. 50 and 53; Responses, D.E. 52, 56-57; In this posture, the

matter is ripe for determination.

A. Issue

Hayden contends that, as a juvenile offender sentenced to a life sentence with parole, he

is owed something that adult offenders are not: a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release

based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 75 (2010).

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 1 of 20

Hayden further contends that the North Carolina Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission ("Parole Commission" or "Commission") and their procedures do not afford him that opportunity. Hayden seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, but no monetary damages.
B. Facts Hayden is a prisoner in the custody of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety ("NCDPS"). Hayden was born on October 6, 1966. Mem. in Supp. PI's Mot. Summ. J., D.E. 31, Decl. Hayden~ 1; Defs Mot. Summ. J., D.E. 36, Ex. A- Offender Info. He was fifteen years old when he committed the crimes for which he is now imprisoned. Id., ~~ 2-3; Id., Ex. B and C Indictments, Probable Cause Hearing. Although Hayden was to be tried as an adult at the age of sixteen, he did not go to trial, but pled guilty to first degree burglary; assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill inflicting serious injury not resulting in death; first degree sexual offense; second degree sexual offense; first degree rape; attempted second degree rape; and breaking and entering and larceny. Id. ~ 4; Id., Ex. D.- Judgment and Commitment. The maximum allowable prison term was two life terms plus 160 years. Defs Mot, Ex. C. Hayden was sentenced to a term of his natural life. PI's Mot. Summ. J., D.E. 31, ~ 6. He has been in the custody of the NCDPS since March of 1983, and he is now 48 years old. Hayden became eligible to be considered for parole in 2002, after serving a term of twenty years. N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 15A-1371(a1) (1983). The Parole Commission has considered him for parole every year1 since 2002 under the normal adult offender parole procedures. PI's
1At the oral argument, counsel for defendants acknowledged that the annual review is not a date certain but generally occurs within a relative time frame of one year after the offender's last review.
2
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 2 of 20

Mot. Summ. J., ~ 7; D.E. 32, Ex. B, Parole Comm'n Records. Each year parole has been denied at the first level of review. Id., ~ 8.
In North Carolina, the Parole Commission is the independent agency responsible for evaluating offenders for parole release. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143B-720(a). The Parole Commission consists of four commissioners, assisted by a chief administrator and staff. Mem. in Supp. PI's Mot. Summ. J., D.E. 32, Dep. Mary Stevens (Agent of Parole Commission), at 20. The Commission employs a staff of thirty-six people including a psychologist, two lead parole case analysts, and sixteen parole case analysts. Dep. Stevens at 8-9. For each case, the assigned analyst researches the record and the inmate file, including using such specific criteria that the Commission has said they want to know about the case, and then prepares a written report and recommendation. Id. at 21, 25, 33-34, and 45. Caseloads are high: each parole case analyst is responsible for approximately 4,338 offenders. Dep. Stevens at 28. According to Paul Butler, the Chairman of the Parole Commission, the most important information in the summary includes the following: the official crime version (narrative of events of crime of conviction); prison infraction history; gang membership; psychological evaluations; custody level history; visitation history; and a home plan. Dep. Butler at 51-52. Special weight is given to the "brutality of the crime." Id. at 54-55.
As for the commissioners, they work full-time for the Commission. Dep. Stevens at 104. The law requires a majority of commissioners (three out of four) to vote on every case. Id. at 86; N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 143B-721(d). They vote on in excess of2,000 cases every month, not including other work the commissioners do. Id. at 106. As of September 2014, the Parole Commission had reviewed about 15,200 parole cases for that year. Id.
3
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 3 of 20

The parole process is a two step process. Step one, or level one, is referred to as the "review." Dep. Stevens at 20-12. Step two, or level two, is referred to as the "investigation." Id. At the "review" stage, the parole case analyst relies on any psychological evaluations contained within the offender's prison file. Dep. Stevens at 63. After writing the summary of the prison file, and making a written recommendation for or against granting parole, the parole case analyst provides the information to a commissioner. Id. at 43.
The commissioners make independent electronic votes. Ex. E. Dep. Butler at 50; Ex. D. Dep. Stevens at 104, 107. They do not consult one another in casting their ballots, nor do they cast their ballots in the same room. Ex. E, Dep. Butler at 50-51. On a "fairly typical day," a commissioner casts approximately 91 votes. Id. at 25. The commissioners have many other responsibilities including presiding over Post-Release Supervision Revocation hearings, attending training, overseeing office administration, reviewing statistical reports, making field visits to jails and probation offices, approving warrants for arrest, and meeting with members of the public on Tuesdays. Id. at 14, 18-19,23-24, 31, 33; Dep. Stevens at 71. The commissioners vote on felony parole cases five days a week. Dep. Butler at 62.
The Parole Commission does not provide notice to a juvenile offender in advance of his/her parole review; there is no opportunity for a juvenile offender to be heard during the course of his/her parole review; and, the commissioners do not hold an in-person hearing to deliberate together on the question ofajuvenile offender's suitability for parole.2 Dep. Stevens
2Since 2012, the only notice given at the review stage is to "any active victim." Prior to 2012, notice was not provided to any party. Dep. Stevens at 50.
4
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 4 of 20

at 43-53. The commissioners are not aware, and do not consider, whether a particular offender was a juvenile at the time of his/her offense. Dep. Stevens at 111.
Testimony states that a commissioner's usual vote is "no" on felony parole at the "review" stage. Dep. Stevens at 98. If the vote is not "no," the commissioner will most likely vote "incomplete," and recommend an "investigation." Id. At the "investigation" stage, the parole case analyst notifies the offender, the offender's prison facility, the victim, the prosecuting district attorney, and law enforcement. Id. at 45, 48-49. It is normal practice for the commission to order a psychological report to be conducted on the offender at this second level of review. Dep. Butler at 35. All such reports must be completed by the Parole Commission's staff psychologist, Dr. Denis Lewandowski. Dep. Stevens at 18. The probation department is requested to investigate the feasibility ofthe offender's proposed home plan. Id. at 54. If the "investigation" shows that the candidate for parole is promising, the Parole Commission will normally offer a "MAPP contract"-which is a contract between the offender, the prison, and the Parole Commission. Dep. Butler at 36. The contract lets an offender work through different custody levels and "get on work release for one to five years before they are released." Dep. Stevens at 77-79. The MAPP contract is ordinarily a mandatory step toward felony parole. Id. at 20-21; Dep. Butler at 60. Hayden has been denied parole at the review stage each year since 2002, thus never reaching the level two investigation.
Reasons for parole denial are considered confidential. Records created, received, and used by the Parole Commission in the performance of its statutory duties are likewise
5
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 5 of 20

confidential and are not subject to disclosure under the Public Records Law.3 1996 Op. Atty Gen'l36 (April24, 1996).
The court notes that while the affidavits of the two commissioners before the court state no consideration of age is given in a parole review, there is evidence in the record that at least one case analyst did negatively consider age as a parole factor. The analyst review reads as follows:
Hayden was 15 years old when he committed these crimes. In 3/07 DOP completed a risk assessment which found Hayden to be an acceptable risk for unsupervised access to the community. It is important to note that in the risk assessment it was further noted that the young age that Hayden did the crimes and the fact that he has spent much of his developmental life in prison suggests he will always require at least moderate level of supervision since it is unlikely that he has significant coping skills and decision making ability to function well without good guidance. In 11110 DOP completed another risk assessment which found him to be an unacceptable risk for unsupervised access to the community. Based on the beliefthat Hayden would not adhere to the conditions of parole and the risk he poses to public safety, it is recommend that parole/Mapp be denied. D.E. 32-4 at 7-8. One additional source of information about some offenders is the commissioners' meetings with the public. Members of the public have the right to visit the Parole Commission on Tuesdays. Dep. Stevens at 71. Availability is on a first-come, first-serve basis, and if a member of the public misses an offender's annual parole review, he or she must try again the following year. Id. at 71-72.
3Plaintiff filed a motion to seal certain documents due to this provision. Defendants do not seek for the information to be sealed and waive the requirement. The motion [D.E. 33] is DENIED.
6
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 6 of 20

Throughout this process, every felony offender-adult or juvenile-is reviewed in the
same way. Dep. Stevens at 39. The Parole Commission gives no consideration to an offender's
age at the time of the offense. Dep. Butler at 54.
An expert report to identify the overall differences between paroled and non-paroled
prisoners in the North Carolina system also provides relevant information.4 Ex. F, Expert Report
4The report sets out its findings in the context of this historical background:
The parole system in North Carolina has undergone numerous changes since its original inception in 1868. In its earliest form, the governor was empowered with the ability to make decisions regarding reprieves, commutations, and pardons, and this was expanded to include a system of supervised release. The governor or his staff retained this authority until1955, when North Carolina established the state's earliest Parole Commission, which had exclusive authority to grant, revoke, and terminate parole. For the next 26 years, the Parole Commission had a great deal of discretion in making parole decisions, which sought to emphasize rehabilitation and public safety. However, in the 1980s, concerns about sentence disparities and a growing prison population gave rise to a new set of rules and standards. In 1987, the General Assembly passed the Prison Population Stabilization Act, known as the prison cap, which mandated that the Commission keep the prison population below a legally-determined level. This dramatically changed the parole process in North Carolina for the duration of its tenure, which ended in 1996. During this time, many inmates found guilty of misdemeanors were released categorically, without much consideration to their degree of rehabilitation or to public safety, as a way to prevent prison overcrowding. In 1994, the system changed yet again with the passage of the Structured Sentencing Act, which eliminated the parole system as it had previously existed, and removed the Commission's discretionary role for most crimes committed after October 1, 1994, with the exception being those incarcerated for driving under the influence.
This report aims to analyze the factors that influence the probability of being granted parole by the Commission for a certain class of offenders, namely those with life sentences convicted before 1995. By focusing on this select group of inmates, it is possible to limit the influence of the changing legal environment. First, by choosing only those prisoners who were convicted prior to 1995, we can be sure that the prison population we are analyzing was and is subject to the Parole Commission's discretion. Second, by focusing our analysis on those prisoners with life sentences, invariably guilty of serious felonies, we can be confident that such prisoners would not have been subject to any categorical release programs as a way to address prison overcrowding.
7
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 7 of 20

of Bryan Gilbert Davis. The report found that the statistical data shows that older offenders,
offenders who have reached 58 to 59 years of age, are more likely to be paroled than younger
offenders. Id. at 8. However, the length of an offender's incarceration seems to have no impact
on whether or not the offender will be paroled. Id. at 17-18. Merely being in prison longer is not
enough to increase parole likelihood. Id. The report found that a vast majority of the paroled
offenders to have a low infraction history in prison. Id. The report found that "compared against
the base case of violent crime, sex offenders are significantly less likely to be paroled." Id. "On
the other hand, perpetrators of property crimes (which include burglary and arson in this model)
are only slightly more likely to be paroled than violent offenders." Id. The report also found that
those that attempt escape are significantly less likely to be granted parole. Id.
Additional statistical data from 2010-2015 shows the following for inmates with no
release date or serving a life sentence:
1. In 2015, a total of 531 inmates are eligible for annual parole review. Because 24 of these individuals were assigned to treatment or MAPP programs, only 507 inmates will actually receive an annual parole hearing. So far this year, six of these inmates have received parole (1.2% of those considered). In 2015, 34 juvenile offenders are eligible for parole, and one has received parole.
2. In 2014, a total of 529 inmates were eligible for annual parole review. Because 43 of these individuals were assigned to treatment or MAPP programs, only 486 actually received an annual parole hearing. Nine of these actually received parole (1.9% of those considered). In 2014, 35 juvenile offenders were considered for parole, but none received parole.
3. In 2013, a total of 508 inmates were eligible for annual parole review. Because 63 of these individuals were assigned to treatment or MAPP programs, only 445 actually received an annual parole hearing. Six of these actually received parole (1.4% of those considered). In 2013, 32 juvenile offenders were considered for parole, but none received parole.
4. In 2012, a total of 490 inmates were eligible for annual parole review. Because 53 of these individuals were assigned to treatment or MAPP programs, only 43 7 actually
Id. at 2-3.
8
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 8 of 20

received an annual parole hearing. Ten of these actually received parole (2.3% ofthose considered). In 2012, 29 juvenile offenders were considered for parole, but none received parole. 5. In 2011, a total of 446 inmates were eligible for annual parole review. Because 35 of these individuals were assigned to treatment or MAPP programs, only 411 actually received an annual parole hearing. Eleven of these actually received parole (2. 7% of those considered). In 2011, 28 juvenile offenders were considered for parole, but none received parole. 6. In 2010, a total of 421 inmates were eligible for annual parole review. Because 50 of these were assigned to treatment or MAPP programs, only 371 actually received an annual parole hearing. Twenty-two ofthese actually received parole (5.9% of those considered). In 2010, 32 juvenile offenders were considered for parole, and six received parole.
D.E. 52, Response of Def. Butler to Court Order.
C. Discussion
Summary judgment is appropriate when, after reviewing the record taken as a whole, no
genuine issue of material fact exists, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of
law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby. Inc., 477 U.S. 242,247-48 (1986). The
party seeking summary judgment initially must demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of
material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 325 (1986). Once the moving party has
met its burden, the nonmoving party "must come forward with specific facts showing that there
is a genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574,
587 (1986) (emphasis and quotation omitted). A trial court reviewing a motion for summary
judgment should determine whether a genuine issue of material fact exists for trial. Anderson,
477 U.S. at 249-50. In making this determination, the court must view the evidence and the
inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Scott v. Harris,
550 u.s. 372, 378 (2007).
9
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 9 of 20

"To state a claim under [section] 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); see Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Mem'l Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 180 (4th Cir. 2009). Hayden contends he has been denied 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. Specifically, he claims these rights have been infringed because defendants have denied him (in the status of a juvenile offender) from receiving a meaningful opportunity to obtain release through parole based on the Supreme Court's holdings in Graham and Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012).
To begin, it is well established that "[t]here is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence." Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979); cf. Hawkins v. Freeman, 195 F.2d 732, 747 (4th Cir. 1999) (indicating that there is no fundamental right to parole release). Likewise, in the Fourth Circuit, a State is not constitutionally obligated to provide a parole regime. Vann v. Angelone, 73 F.3d 519, 521 (4th Cir. 1996). Therefore, offenders' limited right to consideration for parole finds its roots in State law. See Burnette v. Fahey, 687 F.3d 171, 181 (4th Cir. 2012).
In North Carolina, the Parole Commission has the exclusive discretionary authority to grant or deny parole. See N.C. Gen. Stat.§ 143B-720 (2014) (authority of Parole Commission), and N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1371(d) (indicating that the Parole Commission "may refuse to release on parole a prisoner it is considering for parole if it believes" the prisoner falls under any
10
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 10 of 20

ofthe criteria detailed in the statute); see also Goble v. Bounds, 13 N.C. App. 579, 583, 186 S.E.2d 638, 640 ("We conclude that honor grade status, work release privilege, and parole are discretionary acts of grace or clemency extended by the State as a reward for good behavior, conferring no vested rights upon the convicted person."), affd, 281 N.C. 307, 188 S.E.2d 347 (1972) (emphasis added). The Fourth Circuit has determined that due process requires only that authorities "furnish to the prisoner a statement of [their] reasons for denial of parole." Vann, 73 F.3d at 522 (quoting Franklin v. Shields, 569 F.2d 784, 801 (4th Cir.1977)). There is no differentiation between adult and juvenile offenders in North Carolina's parole scheme.
The Supreme Court in Graham viewed the question, not as one of due process, but in terms of the constitutional protections found within the Eighth Amendment. They held
[t]he Eighth Amendment states: Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. To determine 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. This is because the standard of extreme cruelty is not merely descriptive, but necessarily embodies a moral judgment. The standard itself remains the same, but its applicability must change as the basic mores of society change. Graham, 560 U.S. at 58. Importantly, Graham then found that "[t]he Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide." 560 U.S. at 82; see also Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2465 (recognizing "this Court held in Graham [ ] that life without parole violates the Eighth Amendment when imposed on juvenile nonhomicide offenders"). The Court continued that when a state sentences a juvenile and "imposes a sentence of life it must provide [that child] with some realistic opportunity to obtain release before the end ofthat term." Graham, 560 U.S. at 82. Therein, the opportunity must be "meaningful" and "based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Id. at 75.
11
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 11 of 20

Thus, the question presented here is whether the parole process in North Carolina provided to a juvenile offender serving a life sentence with parole comports with Graham. In this court's review, it is important to start with the Supreme Court's holding that in fact "children are different." Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2470. Juveniles have "lessened culpability" and a "greater capacity for change." Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2460. The Supreme Court has banned life without parole as a punishment for juvenile nonhomicide offenders. Graham, 560 U.S. at 48. Absent some meaningful parole process for nonhomicide juvenile offenders, Hayden argues his life sentence is de facto one of exactly that, life without parole-because he will never be granted the opportunity to obtain release by demonstrating his increased maturity. While "[a] state is not required to guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide crime . . . [w]hat a State must do ... is give defendants ... some meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Graham, 560 U.S. at 75.
Clearly Graham created a categorical bar or flat ban on imposition of a sentence of life without the possibility of parole on juvenile nonhomicide offenders. Graham, 560 U.S. at 48; see Johnson v. Ponton, 780 F.3d 219, 222 (4th Cir. 2015) (Graham "categorically barred life-without-parole-sentences for juvenile nonhomicide offenders"); In re Vassell, 751 F.3d 267, 269-70 (4th Cir. 2014) (defendant's petition for habeas relief was untimely because his right to relief first became available after Graham, which "prohibited imposing any sentence of life without parole-mandatory or individualized-for juveniles convicted of committing nonhomicide offenses"); In re Sloan, 570 F. App'x 338, 339 (4th Cir. 2014) (Graham held "the Eighth Amendment prohibits a sentence of life without parole for any juvenile offender [ ] who did not commit homicide"). The Supreme Court in Miller further extended the reasoning in
12
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 12 of 20

Graham to mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles convicted of homicide offenses. Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2467. 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 offender's age and age-related characteristics. Id. at 2475. In doing so, 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.
In applying these principles set out by the Supreme Court, other courts have held that Miller and Graham apply to lengthy term-of-years sentences or aggregate sentences. See Moore v. Biter, 725 F.3d 1184, 1192 (9th Cir. 2013) (a sentence of254 years is materially indistinguishable from a life sentence without the possibility of parole); Casiano v. Comm'r of Correction, 317 Conn. 52, 79,2015 WL 3388481 at *11 (Conn. May 26, 2015) ("afiftyyearterm and its grim prospects for any future outside of prison effectively provide a juvenile offender with 'no chance for fulfillment outside prison walls, no chance for reconciliation with society, no hope."'); Brown v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1, 7-8 (Ind. 2014) (reducing a juvenile's sentence to eighty years after concluding that, while the trial court acted within its discretion when it imposed a sentence of 150 years for murder, such a sentence "means denial of hope; it means that good behavior and character improvement are immaterial; it means that whatever the future might hold in store for the mind and spirit of the Ouvenile] convict ...");Bear Cloud v. State, 334 P.3d 132, 144 (Wyoming 2014) (an aggregate sentence ofjust over forty-five years was the de facto equivalent of a life sentence without parole); State v. Null, 836 N.W.2d 41, 72 (Iowa 2013)
13
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 13 of 20

("Miller's principles are fully applicable to a lengthy term-of-years sentence"); People v. Caballero, 55 Cal.4th 262, 145 Cal. Rptr.3d 286,282 P.3d 291, 296 (Cal. 2012) ("sentencing a juvenile offender for a nonhomicide offense to a term of years with a parole eligibility date that falls outside the juvenile offender's natural life expectancy constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment"); but see Bunch v. Smith, 685 F.3d 546, 552-53 (6th Cir. 2012) (even though an aggregate sentence of eighty-nine years may be the functional equivalent of life, Graham applied only to sentences of "life," not aggregate sentences that result in a lengthy term ofyears); State v. Brown, 118 So.3d 332, 342 (La. 2013) ("nothing in Graham addresses a defendant convicted of multiple offenses and given term of year sentences"). Courts have also rejected state "geriatric release provisions" by which a nonhomicide juvenile offender sentenced to life without parole may apply for geriatric release as
"inconsistent with the Eighth Amendment." LeBlanc v. Mathena, 2015 WL 4042175, at *11-18
(E.D. Va. 2015) (quoting and citing Graham, 560 U.S. at 76). Furthermore, courts have determined that Miller-type protections, i.e., individualized sentencing 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. Greiman v. Hodges, 79 F. Supp. 3d 933, 938-945 (S.D. Iowa 2015) (defendants denied plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to obtain release by failing to consider plaintiffs youth at the time of the offense and by failing to consider plaintiffs demonstrated growth, maturity, and rehabilitation as part of the parole review process); 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
14
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 14 of 20

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"). Lastly, Graham explicitly holds that "[w]hat the State must do is give 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." Greiman, 79 F. Supp. 3d at 943; see Graham, 560 U.S. at 79 (the Eighth Amendment does not permit a State to deny a juvenile offender the 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").
The same principles apply here. If a juvenile offender's life sentence, while ostensibly labeled as one "with parole," is the functional equivalent of a life sentence without parole, then the State has denied that offender the "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation" that the Eighth Amendment demands. See Greiman, 79 F. Supp. 3d at 944 ("a de facto life without parole sentence ... is prohibited by Graham and its progeny"). In the case before this court, it is evident that North Carolina has implemented a parole system which wholly fails to provide Hayden with any "meaningful opportunity" to make his case for parole. The commissioners and their case analysts do not distinguish parole reviews for juvenile offenders from adult offenders, and thus fail to consider "children's diminished
15
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 15 of 20

culpability and heightened capacity for change" in their parole reviews.5 Miller, 132 S. Ct. at
2469; see Greiman, 79 F. Supp. 3d at 943.
For each case reviewed, the assigned analyst researches the record and the inmate file and
then prepares a written report and recommendation. The most important information found in
the summaries has been noted as: the official crime version (narrative of events of crime of
conviction; prison infraction history; gang membership; psychological evaluations; custody level
history; visitation history; and a home plan. There is no information about one's status as a
juvenile offender. There is no specific information about maturity or rehabilitative efforts. There
is no special process for one convicted as an adult before the age of 18, and the commissioner are
unaware of that status. Absolutely no consideration is to be given for that status by the
comm1ss10ners.
Furthermore, caseloads are enormous and each parole case analyst is responsible for
approximately 4,338 offenders. The sheer volume of work may itself preclude any consideration
of the salient and constitutionally required meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on
demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation. Special weight is given to the brutality of the crime.
5 Although Hayden's parole case file explicitly states that he was fifteen when he committed his offense, it is difficult for this court to believe that a parole commissioner can fully take into "consideration [Hayden']s chronological age and its hallmark features-among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences[,]" Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2468, when reading Hayden's case file along with 90 others in a single day. Indeed, if anything, defendants have demonstrated that North Carolina's juvenile offenders face harsher treatment during parole reviews because the young age at which the crime is committed may actually be used as a negative factor in parole consideration by the case analyst preparing the report for the voting commissioners. See LeBlanc, 2015 WL 4042175, at *14 ("If it can be said that Virginia's sentencing scheme treats children differently than adults, it would be because, tragically, the scheme treats children worse." (italics in original)); see also Miller, 132 S. Ct. at 2464-65 (identifying a number of reasons which "establish that children are constitutionally different from adults for purposes of sentencing").
16
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 16 of 20

Special weight is not given, much less taken into consideration, of the age at which the crime was committed.
As for the public meeting, without providing notice to the offender, his/her family members, or others who may be able to provide relevant information about the offender's rehabilitation and maturity efforts, the opportunity appears to exist mainly for those on notice. Since 2012, those are the active victims. Such notice is undoubtedly important to victims. Likewise, the failure to provide the same notice to juvenile offenders denies them "a chance to demonstrate maturity and reform." Graham, 560 U.S. at 79.
The data before the court also indicates that juvenile offenders are rarely paroled. Again, "[a] State is not required to guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile convicted of a nonhomicide crime." Graham, 560 U.S. at 75. Thus, the information from four of the past five years that no juvenile offenders obtained release while adult offenders did obtain parole is relevant only in that it raises questions about the meaningfulness of the process as applied to juvenile offenders. Furthermore, the research regarding North Carolina parolees is that inmates having committed brutal crimes, most specifically sexual crimes, are least likely to be paroled. Hayden was convicted of sexual crimes.
Next without notice of one's status as a juvenile prior to review, the record upon which each commissioner relies is unable to convey or demonstrate maturity or rehabilitation. For example, Hayden has been found guilty of 41 disciplinary infractions throughout his 32 years of incarceration; however, of those infractions he was only convicted of seven infractions since 2000, and one in the last five years. http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender
17
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 17 of 20

infractions. do ?method=view&offenderiD=O 174678&listpage= 1&listurl=pagelistoffendersearchr esults&searchLastName=hayden&searchFirstName=shaun&obscure=Y (last viewed Sept. 22, 2015). This information has significantly different meaning depending on the context in which it is viewed. It gives meaningful insight into gaining, or failing to gain, maturity and rehabilitation if the commissioner views it knowing Hayden was sentenced as a juvenile offender. Viewed in the absence of that knowledge, it simply illustrates a high number of disciplinary infractions which are statistically damaging to one's chance for parole.
Finally, regardless of the fact that juvenile offenders will most likely be serving disproportionately longer sentences, the longer sentence does not present an opportunity for parole. What presents the best statistical opportunity for parole is to obtain the age of 58 to 59 having committed a non-sexual crime. Again, this is not the holding in Graham. 560 U.S. at 59 (citing Weems v. United States, 217 U.S. 349, 367 (1910)) ("The concept ofproportionality is central to the Eighth Amendment. Embodied in the Constitution's ban on cruel and unusual punishments is the 'precept ofjustice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to [the] offense."'). The court finds that the North Carolina parole process violates the Eighth Amendment as outlined in Graham.
Defendants argue that Hayden faults the parole review process simply because he himself has been unable to obtain parole. It is true that Greenholtz-which notably did not address whether Nebraska's parole scheme comported with due process as applied to juvenile offenders-held that "a mere hope" ofparole suffices. 442 U.S. at 11; see Hawkins, 195 F.2d at 747. But even Greenholtz acknowledged that "due process is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands." 442 U.S. at 12 (emphasis added).
18
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 18 of 20

The Supreme Court has now clarified that juvenile offenders' parole reviews demand more procedural protections. See Graham, 560 U.S. at 79; Greiman, 79 F. Supp. 3d at 945. Clearly, in North Carolina's parole process there is no advance notice or opportunity for juvenile offenders to be heard on the question of maturity and rehabilitation- either in writing or in person.6 The offender is an entirely passive participant in North Carolina's parole review process. What Hayden seeks is what he is constitutionally entitled to, "a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Id. North Carolina's parole process fails to meet this constitutional mandate.
D. Conclusion The court denies defendants' motion for summary judgment [D.E. 36] and grants in part and denies without prejudice in part Hayden's motion for summary judgment [D.E. 30]. Specifically, the court finds that the current North Carolina parole review process for juvenile offenders serving a life sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Having so held, the court is guided by the mandate of Graham which instructs that "[i]t is for the State, in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance." 560 U.S. at 75. Thus, the court denies without prejudice Hayden's request for the injunctive relief and gives the parties 60 days to present a plan for the means and mechanism for compliance with the mandates of Graham to provide a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation to juvenile offenders convicted as adults.
6Although the level two investigation does provide offenders with notice and an opportunity to be heard via a psychological report, the infinitesimal percentage ofjuvenile offenders who make it to this level of review does not constitute the meaningful opportunity described in Graham. 560 U.S. at 82 (the parole review scheme "must provide [the juvenile offender] with some realistic opportunity to obtain release.")
19
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 19 of 20

~y SO ORDERED, this

of September 2015.

~ TRREf NCEWd :BOYL. E ,A~
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 58 Filed 09/25/15 Page 20 of 20

 
 REVISED DATE: 09/2001

FORM TO BE USED BY A STATE PRISONER IN FILING A COMPLAINT UNDER THE CIVIL
RIGHTS ACT, 42 U.S.C. SECTION 1983 OR BY A FEDERAL PRISONER IN FILING A BIVENS CLAIM.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
5: NO. ____~~!-0--~C--T----3-/-;-(3 (leave this space blank)

FILED
JUL 1 5 2010
BDUYESNDNIISSTptliCJATV.~~~.ECDLPN!RCK
--._OEPCLK

(enter full names of each plaintiff(s)
v.
Al\1\U \61. KELLER .,"~RROBEEJ C. LEW\ B

Inmate

0 ~
Number

114lo18

(enter full names of each defendant(s)
*******************************************************************************

I.

( Y HAVE YOU BEGUN OTHER LAWSUITS IN FEDERAL COURT DEALING WITH
THE SAME FACTS INVOLVED IN THIS ACTION? YES () NO

If your answer is YES, describe the former lawsuit in the space provided below:

II. DID YOU PRESENT THE FACTS RELATING TO YO~COMPLAINT TO THE

STATEINMATEGRIEVANCEPROCEDURE? YES(¥" NO()

Ifyour answer is YES:

* \LE.X.) \WO Q (}E\'AR.f\\£

~-* j /

<b~\E.\IAN.C:E MD. I W-4lo'i()-ID-

oN 4 II IO

1. What steps did you take? GS\G\IANc:t NC>}~BM-4<"~-to-C040) 4/l¥>/tt:>

2. What was the result? (Attach copies of grievances or Q_ther supportin~ documentation.) .
\36TH 61RlEVANCE~ 1\io~. '"- I AtJQ ~ wERE ~t.~t.CX£U eN -&\E\>\\~ CbB\N0'&1f\£E. \N BO\t\ ~ [\1\B. <i.B.\t\ID'S\]\ff El\tt£RE.D \-\\'&

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 1 of 19

REVISED DATE: 09/2001

VERIFIED STATEMENT

I have been advised ofthe requirements regarding exhaustion ofadministrative remedies and now submit this verified statement.

(Please choose the box that applies to your action):

_ _ _ There are no grievance procedures at the correctional facility at which I am being confined.

This cause of action arose at

, and I am now being housed

at

. Therefore, I do not believe I have administrative

- - - remedies relating to this complaint at this time.
~I have exhausted my administrative remedies relating to this complaint and have attached copies
_iZ__ of grievances demonstrating completions.

III. PARTIES: In Item "A" below, place your name in the first blank and your present address in the second blank. Do the same for additional plaintiffs, if any. NOTE: ALL PLAINTIFFS LISTED IN THE CAPTION ON THE FIRST PAGE SHOULD BE LISTED IN THIS SECTION.

A. Name of Plaintiff: Name of Present Confmement

f;\\C\.Ul\\ 1\h\IQM \{) \.\ f\'1 Ot:s\) -'f.0 l1<.J4> J¥ A\JER'I·- MlJej,.\l;;L\... C.DPS(E.:\\Qt\.iAL lhi'&T •

Address of Present Confmement 60() AM.\"'\'/ QAA\<, R6f\\)
S?\\Uc:..E 9\~E) 1\l .. C... Q~'111

In Item "B" below, place the full name of defendant in the first blank, his official position in the second blank, and his place of employment in the third blank. Use Item (C) through (F) for additional defendants. NOTE: ALL DEFENDANTS LISTED IN THE CAPTION ON THE FIRST PAGE SHOULD BE LISTED IN THIS SECTION.

B. Defendant AL\J\N \J. ~\\ ER')~~-
Position J)E:C £t;,11\~\j Q£ C.{)ffif:Cl\Of\l. Employed at J\\Dl\1\\ l'J\9.-(J\. \tJ\\ \)t:.QI. ()£ ('1)@£(.\\00

Address 814 \,.,\1::~1 :S~ES <i\I. l ~\ E.\GM.)M.C., fl'l(o59-4cj01
Capacity in which being sued: Individual ( ) Official ( Both ( )

c. Defendant

Address B 31 \t.lE'l)1 IV\~G:.l\\\\ 1)1. ) \3 (\\,£ \t1\\ ') f\\ .C., cl'7lo99-4Q{o()
Capacity in which being sued: Individual ( ) Official (~Both ( ) Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO DPoacgueme2nto1f Fi5led 07/15/10 Page 2 of 19

REVISED DATE: 0912001
D. Defendant A.l\\11\()b.l'/ E. RI\ND Position C\-\1\\Rtv\1\hl OF \?f\W)Lt ~
& Employed at hlQST\d (' J\'R£)111\Jt\ ~'&\ S.B ££\;£ ll \\f1~\/t\\Of\i PJ\IDlE CDMM •
so. Address aoC?L> '-100\<t?:& Bf\LE\<h\.\) N.C.. Qjl,<i9-4~QQ
Capacity in which being sued: Individual (dficial (Y'Both ( )
E. Defendant Position Employed at Address Capacity in which being sued: Individual ( ) Official ( ) Both ( )
F. Defendant Position Employed at Address Capacity in which being sued: Individual ( ) Official ( ) Both ( )

IV. STATEMENT OF CLAIM

State here as briefly as possible the FACTS of your case. Describe how each defendant is involved. Include also the names of the other persons involved, dates and places. DO NOT GIVE ANY LEGAL CITATIONS OR ANY LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR CITE ANY STATUTES. Ifyou wish to allege a number of related claims, number and set forth each claimin a separate paragraph. Use as much space as you need. Attach extra sheets if necessary.

.1) lN ;1, tME.. aCb5 1 WH\LE T. WAS \..1{)1.1® A1 1\IA'f:,k\ CLl£RfC.li()NAL INSJ.

(1 tMIT oNE) I

\,lfi,£\

\N:IERVIE\.J£0 EnB 1

PRQMI>Dl)JAL

PttS.Pft&t:>, \3\f

THE

(i Mrr MANAGf:R .

O.J .:t Bii\ThO, 4. "tED D\'$ \ \.\p ~ M'/ Ci>l i'l'IA.I A\\10 \-\61'& f\SOLli 1"\.\10 VEJ\e:~
)1
OLDER :n-\A.N ME
£Affi\(\UlAl2. \?t;t<.&\1\j \t..lf?..';) \?£CAL 1.h)E ()U.'4NQ\ 1\\t. L.11\.tE -liP) THAI
'fOli ~f\R1\(!.,\PA1£D~'Iou WEBf?. NQI E.VW €le..K&O Ql1T> 2M:X \{~
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO DPoacgueme3nto1f Fi5led 07/15/10 Page 3 of 19

REVISED DATE: 091200!

1)
C-OUSUJ WI\~\,

5.) THE UN l1 Mf\lll¥lJ.:R AS\<E.D } <t: MS. \-\JWOON 1 DO \1 ou BEA.l.l.V \<.Nil\J

At...\D t u.1\i1sWtA;.tD \J\\1\I \ICU !?.BE. \tAPS~ £<>& 1 ANO 00 \ID\1 \SNOW

AMO c 'MDEWN..\D

E~Mlk'Y

t\C>\...1

'/00

w~:.BE.

r ))
~cpn

SJ I ~TIDED: CA\\ MAACk\ Ho, \9.~¢, M'l CJ<.lMittlt\L PBOW§\) ~1'3
WERt BtaAO OPI:.NL~ \N \aBDt;;W_. 00\1\ffit 1'il9GR\N<. MC.ll\I. ,-\.US BEAOlN£ 11\lC.L\lC'ED M.'( C.R~ Nl\tl\e.ER& twO T\-\8 E.~ B8£6R6'AACE.B
TO :rt\E.'&E NLlM.SE:R'&., \N CODE EDRM, L.lSIID Wfffil"\ ::n-\E: tJol{I\\ CAWUI\
G. EMERA\.. IDNU1e& ..
9) Afi&B WE £HMMf\111).l Ot ::t\-\E C.\\1\P£E& \dEBE BEM2 7 M.'i AllQfU\leJi&, co~-r\ htaTIEB. Cc{)o.BT A200ME.Ql AMQ "3.\.\ B;:iii\\JC\< ( EAIV\\L\f APPDtNrEDJ,
A.LM.lef> WITM -n\F. \J\3SIB\C:X A1TORI\leJ., Mi<ID \?E.QIY\I.<t:,'t>\01\\ "TO MPBDAek\
]1\E f>GNC\-\. \().•) ~\..\rn!II..'f 1}\ERE&rn£ > M'f f\liOSI\\E'I 1& Q.EJUPJ\\ffi 1\f\lD ~OKE &ltfl.'{
wrn\ M\J G£EIS.1 <tP.N®s>AAf.MJs Ct..~ a41f\2Pli\Ni'l )TOMM\t M\0 M&B J.Rl1.l
\.-\&'lOON:) Af\lO ""'" 6\0L6G.\C~'L N\0\\-\tR)CM(\\NN El.MN.f. \.\1\'(0EIJ.
(:J: Q \ D NO'J \-\Et:.£ 'Tr\E ACIUA.\. CoN.V~IOO.i Bl:;tWEFJ.L Tl-\e\E I\1108AieJ Js ANC\ 1\f\\! P&~)

V.

RELIEF SOUGHT BY PRISONER

State briefly exactly what you want the Court to do for you. MAKE NO LEGAL ARGUMENTS. DO NOT CITE CASES OR STATUTES.

<-\EL\Er RGOUf~1£D
\ \- \4.

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO DPoacgueme4nto1f Fi5led 07/15/10 Page 4 of 19

REVISED DATE: 09/2001
Signed this _9._ day of A\1\.\( , 20 I..D. .
si~ffQ.. ~·rPk
Signature of other Plaintiffs
(if necessary)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
:Z- q- :JOJD
Date Signature of other Plaintiffs
(if necessary)
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO DPoacgueme5nto1f Fi5led 07/15/10 Page 5 of 19

\\. \MMF:D\£\1£.\...'{ f'OLl.()WlNG\ 1"\-\[2: ~~ ~Et\YEE\) 1"\.'1 p~ A,~\.\() M.'/ LA\-.\'itRlB-,-:J:. WP\8. 6~')~'4 3\-\B Bf\\L\ff.) \MID A eoMEE:&ElJ<:B ~R-t.tmraJ
oc ns\ Cb \\16 ro~ CoruL~ tJ\\t (1iJ\lj{)W\£a.~ ~ M.a\~ WERE Al.LOWBJ ··--
_ __\~'t1\t>6 "I\\\-s. ~ Wr\\\ J't\E, 1\~ 1\.f"\Ef..""t\-\Bl'0 ~)11\t 0£0£ W~ CWSBD)
·----------~------------------------------------------
tQ, JY\\j \1W\t..\O£~£&.,~\E. \\A'lOEA).,~ FoR :n·\B }:AMH\1..,\;\E. M\0 )~Mf\-h p.£1ER WE.Q<.~ f:\MD \J&B(~ OF OIA\.OOUE k»B\Jf:B,\ 'tOo.£. l\1IoeJ.i81'~ AtJO 'iQU£. FN"\\l-'1') WE. \-\f\\JG C/)IV\f) 3D A CDf\lCll.X&\\JE:. ~"tt 3~ \l'-..ffi.\1\1. c:>UL
BE£I \~..~TO EXCEPr E\ \?LEA ~\tJ =rt1ro- W\U .. Ch\VE.'lOLl A~ C.\;lNUt!£ M '\..lfE.'l A£IER 'lou. \-ifWE &;R.\Jffi 9C ~~- (£ell OW\1\Xb & Ql£1\ C£
& , '1 TI oR NDLO c D"J:'lel~ )""'o me. ~ or E\l<St ~ ?let AAL
o~ (2,~rRC>\O&~B)., rut <:>3\z\E.R .®~ [\(.lA\1\.iS\ 'IOL~ :s\\f\U. ~ COO.'f<lUomto
\1\fiO "U;\\~ ~\1\KlJ..E Ck)Beo:E., EoR. :si..\CXlEMEUT.~
\'6. 61\.\ M-~ \<A'>m~ ):t... ~C£\?JE\2 :m£. ~ Cf' :t\\E, QLEA A,g\:f\\<tMMENr, 1\'& ···:r.. \'LEAJ NC>lD QD~ =to (~QQ£.C>\.0'6~€'J t:\e$\ ~E ~UJ\L OffQl'SE > P\1\lD 1\r\BB.. BE\r...\Cb M¥5J ~ "-U ~'E.R 0~ GUE$\\OAl~ '> \!,\\ '\\E. ~eaf.l£ ~ . - C. 0).,\N;;..) 28K:\Pi\M\Nt; 3D JY\.'t ~\m <:>i :C\;\ E QLEA- '> :t. W 1\~
\A,.~- l ~tu\'T MAl\lf\ChER)W\\(;M ~\,--\J\\1.. \\E. R8£6<Rf0 "JC f\~ ~O~.N OOF.) bfWJ
\:\-\S C.Of"\RO:ffiQ ~ffhl ~0. !:6 ~ :L oo 1U> \J\EW rt., 1\MO \ib 2011\I'\ED
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 6 of 19

C:.k\AA~f) J:0R ""'3J.~., '"Nb f\i()Ql\\ CPfCUW\ 'Hr. OE C!OePFCDOO'~
OFFGIUOE·R roru..u:m.()\J UtJ.\f\E\> ~~ 'tWtlJ"&. & ~ ~BJ\f&l OF ---'~~E~ Cil\ME,b\0\M~ ~ EC£. E.Ac.ii lMO~ :tl-\AT t\4\"& aE£lJ. ______
C!OtJ."S)\...\llJ.liE() lt...[la =n-\5 QR.iMtl.QlE CON.\1\cr\Okl ')"00 3'\-\fK E.\1~ "1\J'\16 'i<)l

~\BfO ~N\ANOA-"TOe.'i L\FB ~ FOe>Alll-n.lQM '-/OU Are l\ Best
.,\~ C>a::aJ.OOR)W\1\-\ N.O Pe.LO~) eecALtfE :Ili£ lM,ttEM.FJU\m\Otu CE ~\~
-----'S~~'"""-=..u.q.l"""'K:!;.u;.,B.;L-\I""--UUO!Iol.-\S_._~:....tDIL--=u6VJB!~_,t_U_\f>ER.........,.,__'T\.\~8""-l-...C@L~U.....,OO~L\JIJ6~"""'S,_,C£""'.l__·:t\\--"-L.'!~I?,__,FA\c..n..L.te_..........,.'\!fJUIW......,._,.......,...,.C.J..Altb""""-L_...._.......~
P\c'X Ot m \ ."1)

((
\'S. ~l\l t'/e, ~V£tro) t-J\Q. \Af\\fOEtJ-,:t\¥2 2R\M~ ~=mE \?£ltlCWW ~lCllDtJ~--F\~ C~E ~HAL oar~- \...lt\~ ~k:~ ~~ kSECAl ~ :rna;E NEVER Wf\~ Ml'i Q\..\'i8\CA\.... n.\1tBCD~ ) L\$\E.C> t\S C£)1\)'"\¥\~ \MCI, V:Aee'"t'"DgS 1 \1\.L f\'t\l'l OE

~c...\£\Q...) :nM?\1 ~ 2\.~0 \M$\~ .1"\-\E \11\<b\N.!\L 0~1£\C:£.., \.1"\C...\\ 7S\l.S\\k\ES
"))
E\§ZID \JEG:.~t. ~L em~ Ps~ ~ 2R\MCU?l£ c.oN.V,~T&OI\i.

=ro \Lo. ;so~ oo£. ~£\).,(( "B~e&.

~ e-'>r.r'\r,\\<h \o woRK t:ae =m~ 1\.l.c.. ~EPr.

O£ e6Q5~.Ec:no~,I. WOOKEC> ~oQ. =rut. ~\W'~ W2.-~M£n.f[ ..__::t:,...,_-\\.v.:~.....,ME....___ __
~EMI'!-F\,\lf: CafiJ 't~ 'iQ(.W,.q,\0\CE: ~~1\l@, W\IH\f\\ 1\ ~§gM.\lJ'A.l,

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 7 of 19

...lr-\1\\le
C...P\B.DL\IUB __ tJE..P\. C>£ C.OC2ECX\0tU 1 \J.~ 'ICJ.l "&\\ruUJ \:\MJ8 C.OUV\a\QJ
PO\tJI~ \=Qg 3"\-\E Of\11~ ~ \(Qll \JERE, =n\\ED 1\~t::l CD\W\cAeQ OF o.U
L~ .. ~\\tJ. ()0EL&es""\E,G ,((:GH~ '~ 'W>\11\'\) t) wurnu<b ':feu..., B~~t. 'iou ~ e£EtJ ~ ID1 U ~ f\ti'i too.ffi '> T\f-1\E. 1\NS) :tlME NbAli\L-, £OR EAC..i-\ C.~l\\?.B,E
Cf
\9. :SD\,\j\\ C){)E:. ~"ttD) IV\R. WW()EN .,::L £ROM.\~ '{Oli :u\Ki :r: W\ll
PeR~AlLY \NV~\<l:ffi'& 'IOU£. CpS'E. AND ~£ , Wt\-ttr\-\11< 02. 1\Jdi '> I. ~~-­
~&,~1N__ =n-\:E. Qi!X'm~ :t\Mfl' LL C0&2£C.1 ~ \>RC~\ fM o -:Lmm~u D ~ &a: ~ BALE}G.,t\ Pt.lC k\=f\\JE :n-\'E \NRJ~t01\L 1 ::C AIV\ -sEfl<J~) S.OMBTIMR A1Bii IJ5B:,
ao., ~\Mt\\El'i e>NB(O ~ \.JnE?,.) ~ NeT \:\E~li\\G, A \t.\Oro_ EE®
--~ COB) :I:- ~E CCf\l.~ffi AACLO: ~'t 8\TUJ1trLO'J, 1::0 :I: \,.l!gjt "IO
\-\\~ OEF\e..E :TO \f\hQU\\?E \HTO f\1\.'i S.\rt..ti\1"\01\L 1'\l\~C :t\:\\~ \~ :W\r\lrr ttB
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 8 of 19

((
M\\. \-\f\\t(~:.t,L, I 1\M. fA MAt\\ OE \l\l1'£G,R\1'{ 1 scI. W\Ll Nti\" \ 1E -ro 'lol1 1
)l
4 \4 o& SE.l\JD \T "'\C0as'e/C5)}:1l0.-ct-80D3R12R3~-B.O Documen~t11\Q,FEiled 07/15/10 Page 9 of 19

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 10 of 19

ru~.LG>tl "OU!Z... <:A'%e: f'ltl1l\JA.......,~~...._).)- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
~. :r Tot>\( M'l L.E1iER TI> ~\~B\) BE..~\:>~ A~~W~ R8~~N~ 3D IY\R. W. ~f\~~oiJ,e.~E. MM\Jl&ER1 A"lt\'1\1'§, \~ ~ ~E &"'U\lliOC:, ((m:t:.m~'1 ~-
6LC\ I CA~'\. ALL :L C.J:\1\1 00 t~ WR\18 \)0\A\tJ =rl:r\\S ll\lfdWVIDoN 6l'JmmL__ _
'))
_mmmmQ' ECB OF PAPER.

~----'s~u E~. ~ SBUPtL OEfE/U.~
e,) e.f'CCf\l.t> {}ene.EE RM>E

~Q<:R6\0~~5 c\)i<l~~\ffiW
m'1ROOqS5~

~') \~ DtabREE ~~\J\..._._~.._._~_.___ _ _ __,_,<&'-""'Q."""'cf\~O-=-\OQ~~=--Co=-------------
CS) ~RE:l¥,.\hl2>/S\)1E.\W\..\.\b ~EN'I m--~~9."""'--c:f\O"-""'"'~\O~~~g...._,~+>-------
_ ___]"L!-,l)tl--l=J.~~w~cr""'---.)wC'>.I<.\~:n\~\~r-S~~~:T'----i"ID......__K"""-\Liool.L ..... _......~a e..~o \o~ ~4
- - - - _ _ _ Cas_ e 5_ :10-__c._tll--0'-"30£\1~\2\E.3m-Bm{Oo 0D~ocum~ent 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 11 of 19

CbMPlF\lNT (4cl ()..'§.\_. lcti$J

m m m • • -- - -

~1\/'&clo9., J: 8ENI ~ MliD()rJ 'TC =r~ Cl£R~ OF COOK'\ /l~LLCC.

----'B'-"I:?.- . . . ........~ .......IOC.Lf_._..,U...L....._\~~~u-6.,..Q~ll.B"""'~"'"-'-"-'\M..___%~...-"T_._,\\LHG\~L""----.,l<6~E-l=Q:..u001o.l.l~ut\~.u.~.w.\J__jjW.&.J\u_J~D-I"I\u...llJ..__\..c.R.AU:lMm\lii.U'!Mll....-X\?Jlli£Je~e£)~s.~-···············-···········­

\)~ :tb mE. ~,__Q,E,.u.J.,.U~~~~~C..N~$~··-----------------

_ __c.J_.tl\!:l~W.fil~lif.~~~b___i:::B\..:..~~ft'J;:.lf_l:\m.:,.:-~...._w.(.o..0 ... " ' " " 5 ' - - - - - - - - - - - - -

f&oc- 6) ~M@U(S') 1\M\) C.()rv\~M!M.BI'Ur(~) CR.- <oO\

-----······-

\1\\ ~MCE To Cirn\lhl-\hl@> AlL C£1MLNE\L P~~ ~"fa L\'S\B{) \J.! :t:t\E~­

/sa /01., ~\:) MDT\OM £\L 0 1\l \.\

1;)E.r\lD~ tsl£\ I \-\EU)·--..ekE

=u-\ts. f'J\CTKltll. l M t uJitl

a/s,/to.

-······-

~oo- ~:c. 'X~- _ ___.&>-=....._01\1 $1 Do) -:r:. 'N?J\n 1"-1. "tlz\B

c..1 SRI:: c.E cm..exLRE:OEJ.LCD.

_____ \}\\'& f'Nl\\01\.. '8.'1K\ro:

«.~ OF :rn\~ D&TE.;x. ~"\ 1?-WEliOO MN ~~lbUD8tai?

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 12 of 19

M'f Ot e..c:MI?,\~ ~E.toR\)~ 1 BEQUE.~1\Nct> -n\1\\ ~ ~\M

2\.Q ~M>Jl,l\\" ~~~:ID \-\A\1<2"

Pd L C..~\\BQ£~ C.WWJCI\\ffi \~1"0 ~~0\0~5(£\~ OOb~~ "N?.'A.li\L Offe\\~J)

EC£ "lti~I) \t,i\"\\-\ f\ 1::.\r-.\<H£ '&E:.~ :rc ~ \tl\~0) M -sS?B4aED \1\l

C.6Ufr) AND 1\l :&:J £f;.QU.C--s.r l~ 3"'\-.\frr N.C>fl\1 CARCA.Wf\ UEl"\ . Or C~bJ'l--_ _ __
1 C'EA£>E: tR!M O\~a:crlf-}<b/f)\'IJ\0\N.C6 :ffiEi Q.OM.Wl\Al\(Y\1 ~ OE ~s...
flt& S\f\\e.Q B'l 1\\E C...OIJ.KC ON .'...0.."'--!~t<.o..._{~---'-&.._....3..._.,._____________ _ _ __

----~ E<b\I\Mff\E mC.OM\>Lf\\~\) \1N.:082. I~E (\q\Bif\NeE. &.~Dl iffiCM ~IDEC!\ .,=ruE ~e.\€\JAf.lCE
E~MLflJER (1\\.L~ 'T\-\E MA't\ER "\D 3\\B Pt"\lB\\1\0tJ OF~. \Mfl\\1\0UAL~ ~~E....__ _
BE-&P6fU-&\ffiL\J'l \T \S. :ro AD'D~~ ·:ck\e 0QM.~IA\J\.tC ... " .. :r. £ \t.a~"Iv-lo l&)
C£9.\F'NeN.c:.e:. NO.-;t w- 4ldRO- \a - 004..:L:O~~oo.a::Jro='-U;...l,\li-Ac:._4~/'-'-.n.f..~,oL____________ _ ----"Jq,(.U:~"'"'"\t.:u<J~Vsr\\CE ~~ W--4<o~ -Ia-- r::£>d.l.o \)6\en •.. 4/ea/1o
ON T\:-\B f:Ci.J OWII\JC1 REA~~otJS~c_j~.___ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
_ _ _ _ _ _Cas_ e 5:_ 10-c_ t-03l1\(2k3E-BO~ Doo.cCume\n4t 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 13 of 19

BJ QAA OLE ~0£\R\) \)E.t.\~\ON
ul lS~O~O C..Ot\.fi~L 0~ \>. 0. C,.
-~~.L..o..~ Dt.£~t>m1" f\UJ\N W. ~\\ER 1=s\l.. lB BE'&?6M~\B\.E. EO£ =n\E (hO\J8&1\WJ<i> DE =t\\6 NO«\\\ e..f\RDL\N£1 \)E:P\. QE ~\01\.\ • ~e~C\\=' \ Cl\tL\f ) \1\l M.'t <! A'&E. ) T\-\E
* 6) T\-\8 C,,t\.ttRJ)l OE C l &$\£\C M\01\i ANQ OQB\SiroOI\.\ OE 2~\'§t:IM. £1\QAL\1\E;~ ·, ___
* CJ T\-\E. 83-1\\BU'"&~\M<b CE ~Pi\MOOT QR~'S rog. '4DU:.ffi£UL DffE.l\i\laitt:.•)
'* t3) \HE.. e.·s\1\~U<&\\\\\.\q., 6E M\ \MD\\J\\)LU)..L\ZfC ~ C£ O\WfLtU8 1 c.PrQB, 1\tMl
e,o£.Q.Ec:\\6M&L \~ Of" ~ (\tMflu.ttffi :to =n:te OOPA~ ) --* i) ::n\E PAQ.OI t1 CE LDMJ"1.\TIE.D \.JCl.11VfUL 0££~\l~ ~C \'<E;<bt \1 l\1<2. '4 6\ ffi\£U,L
ae:t.MCG.~ SE2li1C\\te \ ~M\!ll1IE ~QP.S. ·> 1Jt EJ1\1E ~TO c.ot\ire.l\C\ W(ffi &\\,'\ SUSL\C. 00 Pf{,Witffi &1ENC:>4 rJar lJAU:eR. ···-
cerruom et\~ ~6t\ITRC,\ ~ ~ A® =t'Rf\\1\.HN<b WR\J\c:.B3> T(') '4at.Ir\-\ruL
_ ___....'3~ bEEmCM BDSEK\ c.. L~\a \<& ~B\6lE EC£. =t\-\E. Qt>\JEfA1tM(!, ot= U\E
l\.\C£\\\ C.B£d..\tJB \J\.\1\~\Cl\1 Of" f>Fs\~. PC :G-1B \)\eECX~ Of \?\:\~~) ~G.':.
\4 Case 5:10-ct-0312.P3f-\BGO,E,Doqcumoe:nQt 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 14 of 19

MMQ\ A\ 1\tJ (4Q U ·~ .t:.. \9,%3J
W\iO?:E \?ROV~~\CW'8 ~\..L f\WUO
Wt\£1\l THE l.J\\..1'& W~ \N a:EPCX.
amu.. LB'I\ DI\\.:.S. 6E .
~roMMUM~~~---------------------
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 15 of 19

}

~

D) :n-\E.\R

\?J A"Tf\l\IT

REB .\£.i\l 3"0

~ '4\Mt.B><W ~E

Ql

~\~'1\EE 1

£6"-

AU

~l.).®~o)

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 16 of 19
~A\b8 \\ ~ \4

AlY\EN.Of'I\EIJr ""IO :tBB l .H.\r\E:n $\Mffi Qor.J'hlmffiall &N.1J \6.\.\-\\CM COtJ:S\\1\.ttE.O
Bhl \U e<tAL E.M't\NUCEM6ALT o£ ~\~ ~e 1Bf>Ll ro l.\1'\lCER ~ t AW.
_ _.....·a!'DE£~Mt:lam- \.EY-\\S' BC:X\01\.m. \t.l t&\l \M~Th \.'bw.B =n\E CN~f<!I M&'rlO\J
T~ 5:>\~ Mf.MBf'RJ?=> OF 1'\t-\B t\1. c..~ '\:J\\1 r&\OJ\l 0£ ~~\~ "'b\NJl ~\ .o EOLLCW
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 17 of 19

·{¥& "I'clE ~0\..\<!>1 Ar..iG \?&O~Du.ee 'IW£ Q;,O\JC£ffi :rb\E.\R f\e"X\~ 9N\~ AJ"""'~~\O~t-1~-­ _ _V...._\..,.,()"""'LtkTE;"& 'T\iE- 2U\\IU.1\Ff1B t\\<b\-\1'& u.l\l'{)&""T\\E 8(1\i\\t\ 1\Mfl.U.)M,E.f.-\.T l\ui:)
=r\\E ¥"Q...)£rEE:t..lT\\ 1\1'\1\a.\DPI\ElJr \0 Tt\6 Mu:&I\""tl.l.r\onl O£ ::rre c.wrre.c ~'&.
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 18 of 19

E tJ.T\1® ..
DPl\E .... MIN a<.a) ao\0 .
---------------~~'l~M\\C.'Jcf:J..L Qo~£.Fc'NUM. \'l\l$C.
(oOO N'-\r\'l \?~ ~.
.
'7- 9- 861D
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 1 Filed 07/15/10 Page 19 of 19

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

WESTERN DIVISION 


No.5:10-CT-3123-BO 


SHAUN ANTONIO HAYDEN, Plaintiff,
v.
ALVIN KELLER, et aI., Defendanst.

) 


)

)

)

ORDER

)

)

)

Plaintiff, a state inmate, originally brought this action by filing the complaint on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 or Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics. 403 U.S. 388 (1971), forms. On April 13, 2011, the court entered an order to provide clarification in the matter. Plaintiff timely replied, and this matter shall proceed as a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Plaintiff has satisfied the filing fee of$ 5.00, and as stated in the prior order plaintiff is relieved from payment of the required $ 350.00 filing fee ofa civil action. 28 U.S.C. § 1914(a). Therefore, the filing fee order (D.E. # 3) requiring $350.00 is VACATED and the monies collected, with the exception of the $ 5.00 filing fee for this case, shall be returned to him. Furthermore, this case is dismissed without prejudice, and in its place the Clerk is DIRECTED to opened a case in habeas with a filing date of July 15,2010. The Clerk is to continue management of the action.
SO ORDERED, this ~day of March 2012.
~E¥ 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 


Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 7 Filed 03/12/12 Page 1 of 1

 
 Appeal: 15-7676 Doc: 45

Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 4

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7676
SHAUN ANTONIO HAYDEN, Plaintiff - Appellee,
v. PAUL G. BUTLER, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant, and ALVIN W. KELLER; ROBERT C. LEWIS; ANTHONY E. RAND,
Defendants. -------------------------NORTH CAROLINA PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION; NORTH CAROLINA PSYCHOLOGICAL ASSOCIATION; NORTH CAROLINA COUNCIL OF CHILD AND ADOLESCENT PSYCHIATRY; UNC CENTER FOR CIVIL RIGHTS; THE UNC YOUTH JUSTICE CLINIC; FORMER NORTH CAROLINA JURISTS,
Amici Supporting Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:10-ct-03123-BO)

Argued: May 10, 2016

Decided: August 1, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and Thomas E. JOHNSTON, United States District Judge for the Southern District of West Virginia, sitting by designation.

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 69 Filed 08/01/16 Page 1 of 4

Appeal: 15-7676 Doc: 45

Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 4

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
ARGUED: Joseph Finarelli, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Benjamin Steed Finholt, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Roy Cooper, Attorney General, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Mary S. Pollard, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC., Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. John R. Mills, PHILLIPS BLACK PROJECT, San Francisco, California; Narendra Ghosh, PATTERSON HARKAVY LLP, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Amicus Former North Carolina Jurists. Mark Dorosin, Brent Ducharme, Elizabeth Haddix, Maryam Al-Zoubi, Third Year Student, UNC Center for Civil Rights, Tamar Birckhead, Barbara Fedders, UNC Youth Justice Clinic, UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA SCHOOL OF LAW, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, for Amici UNC Center for Civil Rights and UNC Youth Justice Clinic. Daniel J. Westbrook, Susan H. Nelson, Cashida N. Okeke, NELSON MULLINS RILEY & SCARBOROUGH, LLP, Columbia, South Carolina, for Amici North Carolina Psychological Association, North Carolina Psychiatric Association, and North Carolina Council of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 69 Filed 08/01/16 Page 2 of 4

Appeal: 15-7676 Doc: 45

Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM: Appellant seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying
his motion for summary judgment, granting in part and denying in part without prejudice Appellee’s motion for summary judgment, and directing the parties to present a plan for the means and mechanism for compliance with the mandates of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). This Court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545‒46 (1949). The district court’s order is not a final order because the court retained jurisdiction to rule on Appellee’s request for injunctive relief. See Gelboim v. Bank of Am. Corp., 135 S. Ct. 897, 902 (2015) (“A final decision is one by which a district court disassociates itself from a case.” (citation omitted)). Additionally, contrary to Appellant’s assertion, the district court’s order directing the parties to develop a plan is neither an immediately appealable injunction nor in the nature of such an injunction, as it does not present serious consequences that can only be effectively challenged by immediate appeal.* See U.S. ex
* While the district court’s order technically denied Appellee’s request for injunctive relief, the denial was without prejudice and the lower court’s intent was clearly to grant injunctive relief at some later point. Thus, this cannot be viewed as a refusal of an injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).
3 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 69 Filed 08/01/16 Page 3 of 4

Appeal: 15-7676 Doc: 45

Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 4 of 4

rel. Rahman v. Oncology Assocs., P.C., 198 F.3d 502, 507 (4th Cir. 1999) (“The [Supreme] Court ha[s] . . . delineated two essential requirements for determining whether an order in the nature of an injunction should be appealable as an interlocutory order under 1292(a)(1): that the order be of ‘serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence’ and that it can be ‘effectually challenged’ only by immediate appeal.” (quoting Carson v. Am. Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981))). Finally, the district court’s order is not an appealable collateral order because it addressed issues that are central to the merits of this action. See Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345, 349 (2006) (“[T]he collateral order doctrine accommodates a ‘small class’ of rulings, not concluding the litigation, but conclusively resolving ‘claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action.’” (quoting Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U.S. 299, 305 (1996))). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
DISMISSED

Moreover, neither party challenges the district court’s denial of injunctive relief in the instant appeal or asserts it as a jurisdictional basis. Instead, Appellant challenges the lower court’s order, in part, on the basis that it directs the parties to develop a plan. Finally, even if Appellant had raised the denial of an injunction in the instant appeal, this would not be a basis for jurisdiction because Appellant sought such a denial before the lower court. See Liberty Mut. Ins. Co. v. Wetzel, 424 U.S. 737, 745 (1976).
4
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 69 Filed 08/01/16 Page 4 of 4

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

No. 5:10-CT-3123-BO

SHAUN ANTONIO HAYDEN,

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

v.

)

)

ALVIN KELLER, et al.,

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

No. 5:10-HC-2272-BO

SHAUN ANTONIO HAYDEN

)

Petitioner,

)

)

v.

)

)

ALVIN KELLER, et al.,

)

Respondent.

)

ORDER

This case was originally brought as a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hayden v. Keller, No. 5:10-CT-3123-BO [D.E. 1]. On March 12, 2012, it was dismissed without prejudice and re-opened as a habeas corpus petition in Hayden v. Keller, No. 5:10-HC-2272-BO. Id. [D.E. 7]; Now before the court is a filing of an amended complaint seeking relief solely under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Hayden, No. 5:10-HC-2272-BO, D.E. 22. The matter is filed through counsel. The filing is ALLOWED. Given the complaint seeks redress through § 1983, not in habeas corpus, the habeas case in this matter is CLOSED. Hayden v. Keller, No. 5:10-HC-2272BO. The civil rights action, Hayden v. Keller, No. 5:10-CT-3123-BO, which had been closed, is

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 9 Filed 09/11/13 Page 1 of 2

re-opened, and all future filings, including the notice of summons filed on September 10, 2013, shall be filed in the § 1983 case.
SO ORDERED, this __tQday of September 2013.

T

NCE W. BOYLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT J

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 9 Filed 09/11/13 Page 2 of 2

 
 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION

No. 5:10-CT-3123-BO

SHAUN ANTONIO HAYDEN, Plaintiff,
v. PAUL G. BUTLER,
Defendant.

)

)

)

) DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED PLAN

) IN RESPONSE TO 25 SEPTEMBER 2016

)

ORDER [D.E. 58]

)

)

)

NOW COMES Defendant Paul G. Butler, Jr., by and through counsel, North Carolina

Attorney General Roy Cooper and Special Deputy Attorney General Joseph Finarelli, in

accordance with the directives contained in the Court’s 25 September 2015 Order [D.E. 58] and

its 25 August 2016 Order [D.E. 72], and submits the following proposed to comply with the

Court’s “plan for the means and mechanism of compliance with the mandates of Graham to

provide a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation to juvenile offenders convicted as adults” [D.E. 58].1

Pre-Hearing Procedures

 Juvenile offenders convicted as adults and sentenced to life with the possibility of

parole (“Eligible Offenders”), will be assigned to the caseload of a designated

parole case analyst;

 Eligible Offenders will be reviewed on a biennial basis;

1 Although he submits the plan set forth herein, Defendant Butler does so in compliance with the Court’s Orders and expressly reserves his right to pursue an appeal.
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 83 Filed 10/24/16 Page 1 of 6

 Eligible Offenders will receive written notice from the North Carolina PostRelease Supervision and Parole Commission (“the Parole Commission”) at least 180 days in advance of any parole review hearing;
 In advance of an Eligible Offender’s parole review hearing, the family members, advocates, attorneys, or other witnesses of the Eligible Offender will be guaranteed a thirty-minute meeting slot to address, in person, one or more members of the Parole Commission in order to demonstrate how the Eligible Offender has achieved the level of maturity and rehabilitation necessary to render him suitable for parole release;
 An Eligible Offender may request a reasonable continuance of a scheduled parole review hearing up to thirty (30) days in advance of the designated hearing date;
 Those who may wish to oppose an Eligible Offender’s release on parole will be guaranteed, if requested, an equal thirty-minute meeting slot to address the same Commissioner(s) who will preside over any parole review hearing for the Eligible Offender whose suitability for parole release is being challenged;
 Offenders will be permitted to submit, in writing, a personal explanation of the circumstances of his underlying offense(s) or, if available, an appellate court opinion setting forth the facts of any offense(s), as well as any materials documenting the offender’s maturity, rehabilitation, and suitability for parole;
 The designated parole case analyst will prepare, on a biennial basis, a summary of the offender’s file, including a summary of any written materials submitted by or on behalf of the offender;
2 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 83 Filed 10/24/16 Page 2 of 6

Hearing Procedures  The Eligible Offender will be permitted to appear, via videoconferencing technology, before the Commissioner(s) and the designated parole case analyst during the thirty-minute parole review hearing;  Audio recordings will be made of the proceedings of both the thirty-minute parole review hearing afforded to the Eligible Offender and, if requested, any thirtyminute hearing afforded to individuals opposing the Eligible Offender’s parole release;  Any attorney, expert witness, advocate, and/or witness on behalf of the Eligible Offender will be able to present to the Commissioner(s) any evidence demonstrating, in the opinion of the presenting party, the Eligible Offender’s maturity, rehabilitation, and suitability for parole release;  Any attorney, expert witness, advocate, and/or witness on behalf of those in opposition to an Eligible Offender’s suitability for parole release will be able to present to the Commissioner(s) any evidence demonstrating, in the opinion of the presenting party, the Eligible Offender’s lack of maturity, rehabilitation, and suitability for parole release;
Post-Hearing Procedures  At the conclusion of the parole review hearing afforded to the Eligible Offender and, if requested, the hearing afforded to those opposing the Eligible Offender’s parole release, the Commissioner designated to preside over the hearings, with the assistance of the designated parole case analyst, will prepare a report to be signed
3 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 83 Filed 10/24/16 Page 3 of 6

by the presiding Commissioner and circulated to the remaining members of the Commission for review and consideration;  In the event that parole release is denied, the Parole Commission will send a letter to the Eligible Offender stating the specific reason(s) why parole release was denied as well as any recommendation(s) for steps the Eligible Offender may take to improve his or her future chances for parole release, such as the completion of specific educational or rehabilitative programs offered by the Division of Prisons, or the continuation of infraction-free behavior prior to the next review;  Although the STATIC-99 risk assessment tool is not currently used by the Parole Commission during the parole review process, that risk assessment tool will not be used nor will the results of any previously-administered STATIC-99 risk assessment be considered during the parole review process for any Eligible Offender;  The audio recordings of the parole review hearing(s) for an Eligible Offender will be maintained for three years from the date of the denial of parole release following any parole review hearing or until such time as the Eligible Offender is released on parole, whichever occurs first;  The Parole Commission will collect and maintain data, along the lines of its current practices, including how many parole review hearings for the population of Eligible Offenders are held annually, the results of the parole review process for the population of Eligible Offenders, and a statistical breakdown on the basis of age, race, gender, and type of criminal offense of parole review hearings conducted for Eligible Offenders;
4 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 83 Filed 10/24/16 Page 4 of 6

 The Parole Commission will request that the Division of Adult Correction & Juvenile Justice and, specifically, the Division of Prisons, will give careful consideration to any MAPP contract recommended by the Parole Commission for any Eligible Offender when the MAPP contract contains requirements for the Eligible Offender’s infraction-free behavior, education, job training, and/or successful participation in any available community volunteer, home visit, and work-release program
Respectfully submitted this 24th day of October, 2016. ROY COOPER Attorney General /s/ Joseph Finarelli Joseph Finarelli Special Deputy Attorney General Public Safety Section N.C. Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602-0629 Telephone: (919) 716-6531 Facsimile: (919) 716-6563 E-mail: jfinarelli@ncdoj.gov N.C. State Bar No. 26712
5 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 83 Filed 10/24/16 Page 5 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day I electronically filed the foregoing DEFENDANT’S PROPOSED PLAN IN RESPONSE TO 25 SEPTEMBER 2016 ORDER with the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system, which will send electronic notification of such filing to the following:
Elizabeth G. Simpson esimpson@ncpls.org Mary S. Pollard mpollard@ncpls.org Benjamin Finholt bfinholt@ncpls.org Attorneys for Plaintiff John R. Mills j.mills@phillipsblack.org Attorney for Proposed Intervenor-Plaintiff Eddie Smith This the 26th day of October, 2016.
/s/ Joseph Finarelli Joseph Finarelli Special Deputy Attorney General
6 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 83 Filed 10/24/16 Page 6 of 6

 
 .,,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:10-CT-3123-BO

SHAUN ANTONIO HAYDEN,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

~

)

)

ALVIN W. KELLER, ROBERT C. )

LEWIS, ANTHONY E. RAND, and )

PAUL G. BUTLER, JR.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

The matter now comes before the court on plaintiffs request for injunctive reliefand motion to appoint a special master (DE 89). The issues raised have been fully briefed and are ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the court grants plaintiffs request for injunctive relief and denies as moot plaintiffs motion for a special master.
BACKGROUND
On September 11, 2012, plaintiff Shaun A. Hayden ("Hayden" or "plaintiff'); a state inmate represented by North Carolina Prisoner Legal Services ("NCPLS") filed an amended complaint against defendant Paul G. Butler ("Butler"), the Chairman of the North Carolina Post-Release Supervision and Parole Commission. 1 (DE 10). In his amended complaint, plaintiff alleged that as ajuvenile offender sentenced to life imprisonment with parole, he is owed a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation" pursuant to the United States
1 A more comprehensive procedural history is set forth in the court's September 25, 2015, order. See Hayden v. Keller, 134 F. Supp. 3d 1000 (E.D.N.C. 2015).
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 96 Filed 11/02/17 Page 1 of 6

Supreme Court's ruling in Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48, 75 (2010). (Id.) Plaintifffurther alleged

that the Commission and their procedures do not afford plaintiff that opportunity. (Id.) Plaintiff

seeks the following injunctive relief: (1) a court order directing defendant to provide plaintiff with

a meaningful opportunity to obtain release by demonstrating his maturity and rehabilitation; and

(2) that the court retain jurisdiction over this action until such time as it is satisfied that the unlawful

laws, policies, practices, rules, acts, and omissions complained ofhave been satisfactorily rectified.2

((DE 10), p. 11).

After considering the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment, the court entered an

order denying defendant's motion for summaryjudgment. The court also granted in part and denied

without prejudice, in part, plaintiffs motion for summary judgment, and provided the following

instruction:

[T]he court finds that the current North Carolina parole review process for juvenile offenders serving a life sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. Having so held, the court is guided by the mandate of Graham which instructs that "[i]t is for the State, in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance." 560 U.S. at 75, 130 S.Ct. 2011. Thus, the court denies without prejudice Hayden's request for the injunctive relief and gives the parties 60 days to present a plan for the means and mechanism for compliance with the mandates of Graham to provide a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation to juvenile offenders convicted as adults.

See Hayden v. Keller, 134 F. Supp. 3d 1000, 1010 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 15, 2015). Defendant

subsequently filed an interlocutory appeal of the September 25, 2015, order to the United States

2 The court notes that plaintiff, in his supplemental brief in support of his motion for summary judgment, requested "a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to provide him with advance notice of his parole proceedings, as well as the opportunity to appear at those proceedings in order to provide input." ((DE 56), p. 7). The court in its September 25, 2015, order denied without prejudice this specific request for injunctive relief. See Hayden, 134 F. Supp. 3d at 1011.
2
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 96 Filed 11/02/17 Page 2 of 6

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and this court entered a stay pending the Fourth Circuit's resolution ofthe appeal. (DE 59, 65). On August 1, 2016, the Fourth Circuit dismissed defendant's appeal for lack ofjurisdiction on the grounds that the court's September 25, 2015, order was not a final order "because the court retainedjurisdiction to rule on appellee's request for injunctive relief." Hayden v. Butler, 667 F. App'x 416, 417 (4th Cir. 2016). After defendant's appeal was dismissed, the court lifted the stay and directed that the "parties have 60 days to present a plan for the means and mechanism for compliance with the mandates ofGraham [],to provide a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation to juvenile offenders convicted as adults." (See (DE 72)).
On October 24, 2016, the parties filed their respective proposed plans for compliance with Graham, which were fully briefed. (See (DE 82, 83)). The parties' individual plans differed substantially. Accordingly, on July 5, 2017, the court directed the parties to confer and respond to the court to indicate their mediation preferences or to move for appointment of a special master. (DE 88). Plaintiff subsequently filed a motion to appoint Martin F. Hom as a special master pursuant to Federal Rule ofCivil Procedure 53(a)(C) to assist with resolving the parties' differences contending that the outstanding issues cannot be effectively or timely addressed by the district court or a magistrate judge. (DE 89). Defendant opposed plaintiffs motion. (DE 91 ). On September 20, 201 7, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing, and heard oral argument on the parties' proposed plans.
DISCUSSION The court first considers plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. Injunctive relief may be granted only upon plaintiffs proofofconstitutional violations. See Bolding v. Holshouser, 575 F.2d
3
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 96 Filed 11/02/17 Page 3 of 6

461, 466 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 837, (1978); Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225, 242 (1972). A federal court's power to intervene in the internal operations of state agencies is limited. See Florence v. Bd. ofChosen Freeholders, 566 U.S. 318, 325 (2012) ("The difficulties ofoperating a detention center must not be underestimated by the courts . . . . Maintaining safety and order at these institutions requires the expertise ofcorrectional officials, who must have substantial discretion to devise reasonable solutions to the problems they face."), see,~. Graham, 560 U.S. at 75 ("It is for the State, in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance."). In prison conditions cases, the Prison Litigation Reform Act ("PLRA") specifically provides that a court "shall not grant or approve any prospective reliefunless the court finds that such relief is narrowly drawn, extend~ no further than necessary to correct the violation of the Federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation ofthe Federal right." 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(l)(A); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3626(g)(7) (defining "the term 'prospective relief [to] mean[] all relief other than compensatory monetary damages"); see Plyler v. Moore, 100 F.3d 365, 369-70 (4th Cir. 1996).
The court determined in its September 25, 2015, order, that the State's current parole procedures violate the Eighth Amendment because they do not offer juvenile offenders serving a sentence of life with the possibility of parole a "meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Hayden, 134 F. Supp. 3d at 1011 (citing Graham, 560 U.S. at 79). In considering the parties' respective proposed plans, it is important to note that the Court in Graham provided that "[i]t is for the State, in the first instance, to explore the means and mechanisms for compliance[,]" and that the "State [is] not required to guarantee eventual freedom to a juvenile offender convicted of a nonhomicide crime." Graham, 560 U.S. at 75. The Supreme Court has declined to articulate a minimum standard for what constitutes a "meaningful
4
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 96 Filed 11/02/17 Page 4 of 6

opportunity." See id. However, post-Graham, federal courts have shown deference to the States when reviewing parole procedures for juvenile offenders. See Virginia v. LeBlanc, 137 S. Ct. 172,6, 1728 (2017) (reversing a Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal's decision finding that the State of Virginia's geriatric release program did not provide a meaningful opportunity for juvenile nonhomicide offenders to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation);3 Wershe v. Combs, No. 1:12-CV-1375,2016WL 1253036, at *4(W.D. Mich. Mar. 31,2016) ("Graham does not allow courts to undertake a full review of the State's parole procedures and substitute its own judgment for the State's .... Rather, Graham requires that the State provide offenders with a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that they are entitled to release based on maturity and rehabilitation, and gives the State primary responsibility for determining how to provide such opportunity."), appeal voluntarily dismissed, No. 16-1453, 2017 WL 4546625 (6th Cir. 2017).
In this case, the State's proposed plan provides eligible offenders advance notice of his/her parole hearing, as well as the opportunity to present evidence and witnesses bearing on the inmate's maturity and rehabilitation. The plan also imposes a duty on the Commission to provide written notice to any eligible offender who has been denied parole stating the specific reasons parole was denied as well as any recommendations for steps the offender may take to improve his/her future chances for parole release. This is a significant departure from the current parole process which provides no advance notice of parole review to the eligible offender, no opportunity to be heard
3 In making its determination in LeBlanc, the Court noted that Virginia's geriatric release program instructed the Virginia Parole Board to consider factors like the "individual's history ... and the individual's conduct ... during incarceration," as well as the prisoner's "inter-personal relationships with staff and inmates" and "[c]hanges in attitude toward self and others." LeBlanc, 137 S.Ct. at 1729 (citation omitted). The Court found that consideration of these factors "could allow the Parole Board to order a former juvenile offender's conditional release in light of his or her demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation." Id. Notably, the petitioner in LeBlanc sought relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the Court specifically stated that it expressed no view on the merits of any underlying Eighth Amendment claim. Id.
5
Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 96 Filed 11/02/17 Page 5 of 6

•

during the parole review process, and no in-person hearing-all of which were specific concerns identified by the court in its September 25, 2015, order. See Hayden, 134 F. Supp. 3d at 1002-1003. While plaintiff requests additional measures such as an in-person hearing before the entire Commission, the appointment ofcounsel, expert witness fees, and judicial review, there is no federal
I
authority mandating such measures and the case law specifically leaves the means and mechanisms for compliance with Graham to the states.
Based upon the foregoing, the court finds that the reliefprovided in the State's proposed plan is narrowly drawn, extends no further than necessary to correct the violation of a federal right, and is the least intrusive means necessary to correct the violation of the federal right. See 18 U.S.C. § 3626(a)(l)(A). Accordingly, the court GRANTS plaintiffs request for injunctive relief and ADOPTS defendant's proposed plan. The court DIRECTS defendant to implement its proposed plan within 90 days of the date of this order. Any future challenges to the new parole procedures must be brought in an independent action. See id. Because the court has adopted defendant's proposed plan, plaintiffs motion to appoint a special master (DE 89) is DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED, this theJ_ day ofNovember, 2017.

~~w,J)/~

TERRENCE W. BOYLE

~, r

United States District Judge

6 Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 96 Filed 11/02/17 Page 6 of 6

 
 Appeal: 17-7582 Doc: 25

Filed: 03/22/2018 Pg: 1 of 1

FILED: March 22, 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT ___________________ No. 17-7582 (5:10-ct-03123-BO) ___________________
SHAUN ANTONIO HAYDEN Plaintiff - Appellee
and EDDIE SMITH, Intervenor Plaintiff
Intervenor/Plaintiff v. WILLIS J. FOWLER
Defendant - Appellant and ALVIN W. KELLER; ROBERT C. LEWIS; ANTHONY E. RAND
Defendants
___________________ O R D E R
___________________ Upon consideration of the motion to voluntarily dismiss this case pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and there appearing no opposition, the court grants the motion.
For the Court--By Direction /s/ Patricia S. Connor, Clerk

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 114 Filed 03/22/18 Page 1 of 1

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
NO. 5:10-CT-3123-BO

SHAUN ANTONIO HAYDEN,

)

)

Plaintiff,

)

)

~

)

)

ALVIN W. KELLER, ROBERT C. )

LEWIS, ANTHONY E. RAND, and )

WILLIS J. FOWLER,

)

)

Defendants.

)

ORDER

On November 2, 2017, the court granted plaintiff's request for injunctive relief. The court adopted the State's proposed plan which included new parole procedures for juvenile offenders sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, and directed defendant to implement the plan within 90 days. Defendant subsequently appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and the appeal was voluntarily dismissed on March 22, 2018. (See (DE 101, 114)). The matter now comes before the court on the parties' consent motion for the award of costs, attorneys' fees, and related expenses (DE 117). The court GRANTS the parties' consentmotion(DE 117), and awards costs in the amount of $62,000.00 to plaintiff's attorneys.
SO ORDERED, this the ~ay of January, 2019.
~~ TERRENCE w. BOYLE
Chief United States District Judge

Case 5:10-ct-03123-BO Document 118 Filed 01/22/19 Page 1 of 1

 
 Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 1 of 12
CLOSED
U.S. District Court EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA (Western Division)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 5:10−ct−03123−BO

Hayden v. Keller et al Assigned to: District Judge Terrence W. Boyle Case in other court: 15−07676
17−07582 Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Shaun Antonio Hayden 0174678 Lanesboro Correctional Institution P.O. Box 280 Polkton, NC 28135

Date Filed: 07/15/2010 Date Terminated: 11/02/2017 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Benjamin S. Finholt NC Prisoner Legal Services, Inc. P. O. Box 25397 Raleigh, NC 27611 919−856−2577 Fax: 919−856−2223 Email: bfinholt@ncpls.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Guild Simpson National Immigration Project 14 Beacon Street, Suite 602 Boston, MA 02108 703−587−8563 Fax: 617−227−5495 Email: elizabeth@nipnlg.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Mary Sheehan Pollard N.C. Prisoner Legal Services P.O. Box 25397 Raleigh, NC 27611 919−856−2200 Email: mpollard@ncpls.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Intervenor Plaintiff
Eddie Smith Intervenor Plaintiff TERMINATED: 07/05/2017

represented by John Robert Mills The Phillips Black Project 836 Harrison St. San Francisco, CA 94107 888−532−0897 Fax: 888−853−4964 Email: j.mills@phillipsblack.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Alvin W. Keller
Defendant Robert C. Lewis

Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 2 of 12

Defendant Anthony E. Rand Defendant Willis J. Fowler
Defendant Willis J. Fowler TERMINATED: 01/05/2018

represented by Joseph Finarelli N.C. Dept. of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 919−716−6531 Fax: 919−716−6761 Email: jfinarelli@ncdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Leslie Cooley Dismukes NC Department of Justice P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 919−716−6560 Fax: 919−716−0135 Email: ldismukes@ncdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jodi Harrison NC Department of Justice 114 West Edenton St. P. O. Box 629 Raleigh, NC 27602 919−716−6528 Fax: 919−716−6761 Email: jharrison@ncdoj.gov TERMINATED: 07/17/2015
Michelle A. Liguori Ellis & Winters LLP 4131 Parklake Avenue Suite 400 Raleigh, NC 27612 919−573−1294 Fax: 919−865−7010 Email: michelle.liguori@elliswinters.com TERMINATED: 07/13/2018

Date Filed 07/15/2010
07/15/2010 07/15/2010 11/19/2010

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against Alvin W. Keller, Robert C. Lewis, Anthony E. Rand, filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibits, # 2 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
3 ORDER Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of Shaun Antonio Hayden. Signed by Clerk of Court on 7/15/2010. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/15/2010)
Filing fee: $ 18.00, receipt number RAL016303. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 11/22/2010)

Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 3 of 12

03/17/2011 04/13/2011
05/03/2011 05/16/2011 07/22/2011 07/27/2011 11/02/2011 03/12/2012
03/13/2012 09/11/2013
09/11/2013 09/11/2013 09/16/2013 09/16/2013 10/03/2013 10/09/2013 10/15/2013 11/04/2013 11/21/2013

Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number RAL018240. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/17/2011)
4 ORDER − the clerk is DIRECTED to provide the 28 U.S.C. § 2241 form along with this order to plaintiff. If plaintiff wishes to convert this action into a habeas action, he must provide the $5.00 filing fee and return the § 2241 forms within 21 days of the filing of this order. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 4/12/2011. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 04/13/2011)
5 RESPONSE to Order re 4 Order, filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support, # 2 Documents in Support, # 3 Envelope) (Taylor, B.) (Entered: 05/05/2011)
Filing fee: $ 15.00, receipt number RAL019292. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 05/17/2011)
Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number RAL020384. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2011)
6 NOTICE of Change of Address by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/27/2011)
Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number RAL022206. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 11/02/2011)
7 ORDER − the filing fee order 3 requiring $350.00 is VACATED and the monies collected, with the exception ofthe $5.00 filing fee for this case, shall be returned to plaintiff. Furthermore, this case is dismissed without prejudice, and in its place the Clerk is DIRECTED to open a case in habeas with a filing date of July 15, 2010. The Clerk is to continue management of the action. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 3/9/2012. Copy sent to plaintiff via US Mail. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/12/2012)
8 CLERK'S JUDGMENT − that this action is hereby dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 3/13/2012. Copy to plaintiff with notice of appellate rights sent via US Mail. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 03/13/2012)
9 ORDER − The civil rights action, Hayden v. Keller, No. 5:10−CT−3123−BO, which had been closed, is re−opened, and all future filings, including the notice of summons filed on September 10, 2013, shall be filed in the § 1983 case. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 9/10/2013. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
10 AMENDED COMPLAINT against Paul G. Butler, Jr. filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachment: # 1 Proposed Summons) (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
11 Summons Issued as to Paul G. Butler, Jr. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 09/11/2013)
12 AFFIDAVIT of Service for Summons & Complaint served on Paul G Butler on 09/12/13, filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Proof of Service) (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
13 NOTICE of Appearance by Mary Sheehan Pollard on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Pollard, Mary) (Entered: 09/16/2013)
14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer regarding 10 Amended Complaint by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Harrison, Jodi) (Entered: 10/03/2013)
15 Proposed Order regarding 14 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer regarding 10 Amended Complaint filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Harrison, Jodi) (Entered: 10/09/2013)
16 ORDER granting 14 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer regarding 10 Amended Complaint Paul G. Butler, Jr. answer due 11/2/2013. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 10/15/2013. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 10/15/2013)
17 ANSWER to 10 Amended Complaint by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Harrison, Jodi) (Entered: 11/04/2013)
18 Rule 26(f) Report (joint) by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/21/2013)

Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 4 of 12

04/03/2014 04/09/2014 04/09/2014
04/09/2014 05/07/2014 05/08/2014 05/08/2014 05/08/2014 05/08/2014 05/08/2014 05/20/2014 07/21/2014 07/21/2014 07/22/2014
09/17/2014 09/17/2014 09/18/2014 11/03/2014 11/03/2014
11/03/2014

19 Request for Discovery Stipulation. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 04/03/2014)
20 MOTION to Compel by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
21 Memorandum in Support regarding 20 MOTION to Compel filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I) (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding: 20 Motion to Compel. The incorrect case number is listed on the document. For future filings, please use the correct case number. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 04/09/2014)
Motion Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: 20 MOTION to Compel Discovery. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 05/07/2014)
MOTION REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. as to: 20 MOTION to Compel Discovery. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
22 NOTICE by Shaun Antonio Hayden regarding 20 MOTION to Compel , 21 Memorandum in Support. (Pollard, Mary) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding 22 Notice−(other). The incorrect event was used. Counsel is directed to refile this pleading under the correct event by using the event entitled Withdrawal of Motion. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
23 WITHDRAWAL of Motion by Shaun Antonio Hayden. regarding 20 MOTION to Compel filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden . (Pollard, Mary) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
24 STIPULATION OF DISCOVERY by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Harrison, Jodi) (Entered: 05/08/2014)
25 SCHEDULING ORDER: Discovery due by 8/21/2014. Motions due by 9/22/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 5/20/2014. Counsel is reminded to read the entire order for critical dates and deadlines. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 05/20/2014)
26 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order proposed order) (Pollard, Mary) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
MOTION REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr.: 26 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/21/2014)
27 ORDER − GRANTING 26 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery. The parties shall have up to and including August 21, 2014 to produce expert reports, and that the discovery period is extended through August 31, 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 7/22/2014. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2014)
28 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Harrison, Jodi) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
Motion referred to US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. : 28 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motions. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 09/17/2014)
29 ORDER − granting 28 Motion for Extension of Time; both parties are given until 11/3/2014 in which to file all motions. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 9/18/2014. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 09/18/2014)
30 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
31 Memorandum in Support regarding 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of Shaun A. Hayden, # 2 Exhibit C − List of NC Parole Commissioners, # 3 Exhibit F − Expert Report of Gilbert Davis) (Simpson, Elizabeth) Modified on 11/3/2014 to correctly identify exhibits. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
32 PROPOSED SEALED Exhibit (Selected Participants Only)by Shaun Hayden (available to: Defendant Paul G. Butler, Jr, Plaintiff Shaun Antonio Hayden) regarding

Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 5 of 12

11/03/2014 11/03/2014
11/03/2014 11/03/2014 11/04/2014
11/10/2014
11/10/2014 11/24/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014 12/01/2014
12/01/2014 07/01/2015

31 Memorandum in Support, 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit B, # 2 Exhibit D, # 3 Exhibit E, # 4 Exhibit G, # 5 Exhibit H) (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
33 MOTION to Seal 32 PROPOSED SEALED Exhibit, by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
NOTICE TO COUNSEL regarding: 31 Memorandum in Support. In accordance with the Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual Section L(2)(b) exhibits must be identified with a clear and complete description of the documents (e.g., Exhibit 1 is insufficient. Affidavit of Jane Doe would meet the requirement.) Docket Entry 31 has been corrected by the court. Counsel should correctly refile Docket Entry 32 following the naming convention requirements. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
34 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion by Paul G. Butler, Jr, Alvin W. Keller, Robert C. Lewis, Anthony E. Rand. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Harrison, Jodi) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
MOTION REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr.: 34 Second MOTION for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
35 ORDER − GRANTING 34 Motion for Extension of Time. Defendant is given until November 10,2014, in which to file all motions of any nature, except those relating to the admissibility of evidence at trial. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. on 11/4/2014. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 11/04/2014)
36 MOTION for Summary Judgment by Paul G. Butler, Jr., Alvin W. Keller, Robert C. Lewis, Anthony E. Rand. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Index, # 2 Exhibit A − Offender Information Report of Plaintiff, # 3 Exhibit B − Indictments, # 4 Exhibit C − Probable Cause Order, # 5 Exhibit D − Judgment & Commitment, # 6 Exhibit E − Newspaper Articles, # 7 Exhibit F − Deposition Excerpt, Stevens, # 8 Exhibit G − Deposition Excerpt, Butler) (Harrison, Jodi) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
37 Memorandum in Support regarding 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Harrison, Jodi) (Entered: 11/10/2014)
38 RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Harrison, Jodi) (Entered: 11/24/2014)
39 Response in Opposition regarding 36 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Simpson, Elizabeth) Modified on 12/1/2014 to reflect the correct docket entry and number. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
40 REPLY to Response to Motion regarding 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
NOTICE TO COUNSEL − Counsel is reminded that when submitting a pleading in response to a motion, to reflect the link of that particular motion and not the supporting memorandum. (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
41 REPLY to Response to Motion regarding 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Excerpt from Deposition of Mary Stevens) (Harrison, Jodi) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
Motions Submitted to United States District Judge Terrence W. Boyle regarding 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment , 33 MOTION to Seal 32 PROPOSED SEALED Exhibit and 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment . (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
42 RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 33 MOTION to Seal 32 PROPOSED SEALED Exhibit, filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Harrison, Jodi) (Entered: 12/01/2014)
43 NOTICE of Hearing on 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment: Motion Hearing set for 7/29/2015 at 02:00 PM in Raleigh − 7th Floor − Courtroom 2 before US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/01/2015)

Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 6 of 12

07/17/2015 07/21/2015
07/21/2015 07/22/2015
07/22/2015 07/22/2015
07/27/2015 07/28/2015 07/31/2015 08/04/2015 08/06/2015 08/07/2015 08/07/2015 08/10/2015

44 Notice of Substitution of Counsel filed by Joseph Finarelli on behalf of Paul G. Butler, Jr substituting for Jodi Harrison. (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 07/17/2015)
45 WRIT of of Habeas Corpus issued to NC Department of Public Safety to produce Shawn Antonio Hayden on July 29, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Raleigh, NC. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. Copies mailed to Division of Prison, Processing Section; the Attorney General of North Carolina, Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina; the Superintendent of Lumberton Correctional Institution; and the United States Marshal, Raleigh, North Carolina. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
Copy of Writ has been mailed to Franklin Correctional Institution which is the current location of the plaintiff. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 07/21/2015)
46 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS issued to NC Department of Public Safety to produce Shawn Antonio Hayden on July 29, 2015 at 1:30 p.m. in Raleigh, NC. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. Copies mailed to Division of Prison, Processing Section; the Attorney General of North Carolina, Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina; the Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Center; and the United States Marshal, Raleigh, North Carolina. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
47 NOTICE of Hearing on Motion (Date and Time Change) as to 30 MOTION for Summary Judgment and 36 MOTION for Summary Judgment. Motion Hearing set for 7/27/2015 at 3:00 PM in Raleigh − 7th Floor − Courtroom 2 before District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
48 WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS issued to NC Department of Public Safety to produce Shawn Antonio Hayden on July 27, 2015 at 2:30 p.m. in Raleigh, NC. Signed by US Magistrate Judge Robert B. Jones, Jr. Copies mailed to Division of Prison, Processing Section; the Attorney General of North Carolina, Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina; the Superintendent of Franklin Correctional Center; and the United States Marshal, Raleigh, North Carolina. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/22/2015)
49 Minute Entry for proceedings held in Raleigh, NC before District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: Motions Hearing held on 7/24/2015. All parties present and ready to proceed. Written order to follow. (Court Reporter Donna Tomawski) (Romine, L.) (Entered: 07/27/2015)
50 ORDER − As a supplement to the summary judgment materials now before the court, the defendants are ORDERED to provide certain data. Defendants shall provide this information on or before August 7, 2015. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 7/28/2015. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/28/2015)
51 Letter from Shaun Hayden thanking the court for allowing his presence at the hearing. (Attachment: # 1 Envelope) (Indig, A.) (Entered: 07/31/2015)
52 RESPONSE to Order regarding 50 Order, Set Deadlines,, filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Requested Statistical Data) (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 08/04/2015)
53 ORDER − Plaintiff is allowed until August 18, 2015, to file a supplemental brief to which defendants may respond by August 28, 2015. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/6/2015. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 08/06/2015)
54 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file Supplemental Brief filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
Motion Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: 54 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to file Supplemental Brief. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 08/07/2015)
55 TEXT ORDER − This matter is before the court on plaintiff's motion for an extension of time to file a supplemental brief [D.E. 54] as ordered on August 6, 2015. Defendant consents to this motion. Good cause being shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the plaintiff be allowed until September 1, 2015, to file a supplemental brief to which defendants may respond by September 10, 2015. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/10/2015. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 08/10/2015)

Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 7 of 12

09/01/2015 09/09/2015 09/25/2015
10/21/2015
10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/21/2015 10/22/2015 11/13/2015 11/13/2015 11/13/2015 11/13/2015 11/19/2015 11/20/2015 11/23/2015 02/24/2016

56 RESPONSE to Order regarding 53 Order Re: Supplemental Briefing filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− New Law) (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 09/01/2015)
57 RESPONSE regarding 53 Order, 56 Response filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 09/09/2015)
58 ORDER − The court denies defendants' motion for summary judgment [D.E. 36] and grants in part and denies without prejudice in part Hayden's motion for summary judgment [D.E. 30]. Specifically, the court finds that the current North Carolina parole review process for juvenile offenders serving a life sentence violates the Eighth Amendment. The court denies without prejudice Hayden's request for the injunctive relief and gives the parties 60 days to present a plan for the means and mechanism for compliance with the mandates of Graham to provide a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation to juvenile offenders convicted as adults. DENYING 33 Motion to Seal. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 9/25/2015. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 09/25/2015)
59 Interlocutory Notice of Appeal filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr, Alvin W. Keller, Robert C. Lewis, Anthony E. Rand as to 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Seal,,,,,,,,,,. Filing fee, receipt number 0417−3459816. (Finarelli, Joseph) Modified on 10/21/2015 to add the word Interlocutory. (McDowell, G.). (Entered: 10/21/2015)
NOTICE OF CORRECTION regarding: 59 Notice of Appeal. Since a final judgment has not been entered in this case, the Notice of Appeal has been changed to Interlocutory Notice of Appeal. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
60 Transmission of Interlocutory Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals regarding 59 Interlocutory Notice of Appeal. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
61 Corrected Transmission of Interlocutory Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals regarding 59 Interlocutory Notice of Appeal. Correct to show that Appeal Fee has been paid. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
62 US Court of Appeals Case Number 15−7676 (Jeffrey S. Neal, Case Manager) as to 59 Notice of Appeal Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 10/22/2015)
63 MOTION to Stay regarding 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Seal,,,,,,,,,, filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order) (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
64 Memorandum in Support regarding 63 MOTION to Stay regarding 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Seal,,,,,,,,,, filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
Motion Submitted to US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: regarding 63 MOTION to Stay regarding 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
65 ORDER granting 63 Motion to Stay. Signed by US District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 11/13/2015. (McDowell, G.) (Entered: 11/13/2015)
66 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Granting Withdrawal of Attorney Elizabeth Simpson) (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 11/19/2015)
Motion Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: regarding 66 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney . (Indig, A.) (Entered: 11/20/2015)
67 ORDER − GRANTING 66 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Elizabeth Guild Simpson terminated. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 11/23/2015. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 11/23/2015)
68 Letter regarding grievances from Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Documents in Support and Grievances, # 2 Envelope) (Blankenship, T.) (Entered: 02/24/2016)

Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 8 of 12

08/01/2016 08/01/2016 08/23/2016 08/25/2016 08/30/2016 08/31/2016 09/06/2016 09/06/2016 09/14/2016 09/22/2016
10/13/2016
10/13/2016
10/13/2016

69 Unpublished Opinion from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals − DISMISSED. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
70 US Court of Appeals Judgment as to 59 Notice of Appeal, filed by Robert C. Lewis, Alvin W. Keller, Paul G. Butler, Jr., Anthony E. Rand. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 08/01/2016)
71 MANDATE of US Court of Appeals (certified copy) as to 59 Notice of Appeal, filed by Robert C. Lewis, Alvin W. Keller, Paul G. Butler, Jr., Anthony E. Rand. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
72 ORDER LIFTING STAY and the parties have 60 days to present a plan for the means and mechanism for compliance with the mandates of Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010). Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/25/2016. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 08/25/2016)
73 Notice of Appearance filed by Benjamin S. Finholt on behalf of Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Finholt, Benjamin) (Entered: 08/30/2016)
74 Notice of Appearance filed by Elizabeth Guild Simpson on behalf of Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 08/31/2016)
75 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis , filed by Eddie Smith. (Mills, John) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
76 Notice of Appearance filed by John Robert Mills on behalf of Eddie Smith. (Mills, John) (Entered: 09/06/2016)
Notice. This entry is a test of the electronic filing system. All parties to this matter may ignore this entry unless you have been in touch with the CM−ECF Help Desk. (Cannon, S) (Entered: 09/14/2016)
77 ORDER − As this matter was stayed pending adjudication of defendants' interlocutory appeal; this matter should have been removed from the court's active docket as of the date of entry of its order allowing defendants' motion to stay. [November 13, 2015, D.E. 65.] The matter should then have been returned to the court's active docket on August 25, 2016, when the stay was lifted upon issuance of the mandate. [Order, D.E. 72.] The clerk is DIRECTED to amend the court's docket accordingly. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 9/22/2016. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 09/22/2016)
78 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff filed by Eddie Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit V, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit W, # 24 Index Exhibit Index) (Mills, John) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding: 78 Motion to Intervene. Pursuant to the CM/ECF Policies and Procedures Manual Section L(2)(b)(c) Attachments and exhibits must be identified with a clear and complete description of the document. (e.g., Exhibit 1 is insufficient. Affidavit of Jane Doe would meet the requirement.) The first attached exhibit or attachment must be an index of all of the subsequently attached documents. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
79 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff filed by Eddie Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Index Index of Exhibits, # 2 Exhibit Indictment, State v. Smith, 86−CRS−28322, # 3 Exhibit Judgment and Commitment Misd. Assault 1, State v. Smith 86−CRS−29772, # 4 Exhibit Judgment and Commitment Misd. Assault 2, State v. Smith 86−CRS−29772, # 5 Exhibit Judgment and Commitment, Crime Against Nature, State v. Smith 86−CRS−29772, # 6 Exhibit Judgment and Commitment Intimidation of a Witness, State v. Smith 86−CRS−29772, # 7 Exhibit Judgment and Commitment First Degree Sexual Offense, State v. Smith 86−CRS−29772, # 8 Exhibit Declaration of Eddie Smith, # 9 Exhibit Declaration of Felicia McMillan, # 10 Exhibit Declaration of Sharon Pierce, # 11 Exhibit Declaration of Glen Robinson, # 12 Exhibit Letter from Rep. Rodney Moore, # 13 Exhibit Letter from Anthony Siler, # 14 Exhibit Declaration of Jamie Wernsman PhD, # 15 Exhibit Declaration of Kalisha Bellamy, # 16 Exhibit

Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 9 of 12

10/18/2016 10/24/2016 10/24/2016 10/24/2016 10/24/2016 10/31/2016 11/02/2016 11/09/2016
12/06/2016 07/05/2017
07/17/2017

Certificates of Completion, NCDPS, # 17 Exhibit Certificate of Completion SOAR Program, # 18 Exhibit SOAR Program Summary Report for Eddie Smith, # 19 Exhibit SOAR Statistics Memo, June 2006, # 20 Exhibit NC DPS Infractions History of Eddie Smith, # 21 Exhibit Declaration of Priscilla Bell, # 22 Exhibit Declaration of Anthony Siler, # 23 Exhibit Letter from Eddie Smith to NC Parole Commission, # 24 Exhibit NC DPS SOAR Fact Sheet) (Mills, John) (Entered: 10/13/2016)
80 Financial Disclosure Statement by Eddie Smith (Mills, John) (Entered: 10/18/2016)
81 Notice filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden Proposed Plan for Compliance with Graham. (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
82 Memorandum in Support regarding 81 Notice − other Proposed Plan for Compliance with Graham filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A −− Review for Release Article) (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
83 Notice filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr regarding 72 Order Lifting Stay, 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Motion to Seal Defendant's Proposed Plan in Response to 25 September 2015 Order. (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
84 RESPONSE regarding 81 Notice − other, 82 Memorandum in Support in Opposition filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 10/24/2016)
85 RESPONSE regarding 83 Notice − other, 84 Response to Defendants' Plan filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 10/31/2016)
86 RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 79 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 11/02/2016)
87 First MOTION to Amend/Correct Motion to Intervene filed by Eddie Smith. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Amended Motion to Intervene, # 2 Supplement Complaint, # 3 Index Index to Exhibits in Support of Amended Motion to Intervene, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit A, Indictment, State v. Smith, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit B, Judgment and Commitment, State v. Smith, 86CRS28320, # 6 Exhibit Judgment and Commitment, State v. Smith, 86CRS29772, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit D, Judgment and Commitment, 86CRS28321, # 8 Exhibit Exhibit E, Judgment and Commitment, State v. Smith, 86CRS29773, # 9 Exhibit Exhibit F, Judgment and Commitment, State v. Smith, 86CRS28322, # 10 Exhibit Exhibit G, Declaration of Eddie Smith, # 11 Exhibit Exhibit H, Declaration of Felicia McMillan, # 12 Exhibit Exhibit I, Declaration of Sharon Pierce, # 13 Exhibit Exhibit J, Declaration of Glen Robinson, # 14 Exhibit Exhibit K, March 31, 2014, Letter from State Representative Moor, # 15 Exhibit Exhibit L, Letter from Anthony Siler, # 16 Exhibit Exhibit M, Declaration of Jamie Wernsman, PhD, # 17 Exhibit Exhibit N, Declaration of Kalisha Bellamy, # 18 Exhibit Exhibit O, Certificates of Completion, NCDPS and Collegiate Programming, # 19 Exhibit Exhibit P, Dec. 6, 2013, Certificate of Completion, NCDPS SOAR Program, # 20 Exhibit Exhibit Q, Jan. 8, 2014 SOAR program Report for Eddie Smith, # 21 Exhibit Exhibit R, June 2006 SOAR Memo, # 22 Exhibit Exhibit S, DPS Infractions History for Eddie Smith, Oct. 10, 2016, # 23 Exhibit Exhibit T, Declaration of Priscilla Bell, # 24 Exhibit Exhibit U, Declaration of Anthony Siler, # 25 Exhibit Exhibit V, Letter from Eddies Smith to Parole Commission, Mar. 5, 2016, # 26 Exhibit Exhibit W, NCDPS SOAR Fact Sheet) (Mills, John) (Entered: 11/09/2016)
Motions Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: regarding 79 MOTION to Intervene as Plaintiff and 87 First MOTION to Amend Motion to Intervene. (Indig, A.) (Entered: 12/06/2016)
88 ORDER − Smith's motion to amend his motion to intervene (DE 87 ) is GRANTED. Smith's motion to intervene (DE 79 , 87 ) is DENIED. As a result, Smith's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (DE 75 ) is DENIED as MOOT. The parties are DIRECTED to confer and inform the court of their mediation preferences as set forth above or to move for appointment of a special master within 14 days of the date of this order. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 7/3/2017. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 07/05/2017)
89 MOTION to Appoint Special Master filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/17/2017)

Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 10 of 12

07/17/2017 07/27/2017
07/28/2017 07/28/2017 08/07/2017 08/11/2017 10/06/2017 10/23/2017
10/27/2017 11/02/2017
11/02/2017 11/16/2017
11/16/2017 11/16/2017 11/22/2017

90 Memorandum in Support regarding 89 MOTION to Appoint Special Master filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Simpson, Elizabeth) (Entered: 07/17/2017)
91 RESPONSE to Order regarding 88 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, Order on Motion to Intervene, Order on Motion to Amend/Correct,,,,,, 89 MOTION to Appoint Special Master filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Mr. Horn's CV, # 2 Exhibit Mr. Horn's Biography) (Finholt, Benjamin) (Entered: 07/27/2017)
Motion Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle regarding: 89 MOTION to Appoint Special Master. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
Motion No Longer Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle regarding 89 MOTION to Appoint Special Master. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 07/28/2017)
92 RESPONSE in Opposition regarding 89 MOTION to Appoint Special Master filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 08/07/2017)
Motion Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle regarding: 89 MOTION to Appoint Special Master. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 08/11/2017)
93 NOTICE of Hearing: Hearing set for 10/27/2017 at 10:00 AM in Raleigh − 7th Floor − Courtroom 2 before District Judge Terrence W. Boyle. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 10/06/2017)
94 WRIT of HABEAS CORPUS issued as to SHAUN ANTONIO HAYDEN #0174678 for the purpose of appearing at a hearing scheduled in the above captioned case before the Honorable Terrence W. Boyle, United States District Judge on Friday, October 27, 2017 at 10:00 a.m. at the United States Courthouse, 310 New Bern Avenue, Raleigh, North Carolina. Copy sent via US Mail to Warden of Lanesboro Correctional Institution and via facsimile to NC Prison Administration and via email to the US Marshal Service. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 10/23/2017)
95 Minute Entry for proceedings held before District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: Status Conference held on 10/27/2017. Plaintiff present with counsel. Counsel for defendant present. Written order to follow. (Court Reporter Amy Condon) (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
96 ORDER − the court GRANTS plaintiff's request for injunctive relief and ADOPTS defendant's proposed plan. The court DIRECTS defendant to implement its proposed plan within 90 days of the date of this order. Any future challenges to the new parole procedures must be brought in an independent action. Because the court has adopted defendant's proposed plan, plaintiff's motion to appoint a special master (DE 89 ) is DENIED as MOOT. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 11/2/2017. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
97 CLERK'S JUDGMENT − that plaintiff's request for injunctive relief is granted and defendant's proposed plan is adopted. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 11/2/2017. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 11/02/2017)
98 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Attorney Time Statement, # 2 Exhibit CJA Rates, # 3 Exhibit NCPLS Expenses, # 4 Exhibit Declaration of Elizabeth Simpson, # 5 Exhibit Declaration of Ben Finholt, # 6 Exhibit NCPLS Contract with IDS) (Finholt, Benjamin) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
99 Memorandum in Support regarding 98 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Finholt, Benjamin) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
100 Consent MOTION regarding 98 MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (Finholt, Benjamin) (Entered: 11/16/2017)
Motion Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle regarding: 100 Consent MOTION regarding 98 MOTION for Attorney Fees. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 11/22/2017)

Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 11 of 12

12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/01/2017 12/04/2017 12/05/2017 01/08/2018
02/22/2018
02/22/2018
02/23/2018
02/23/2018

101 Notice of Appeal filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr as to 96 Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief,, 58 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment,,,, Order on Motion to Seal,,,,,,,. Filing fee, receipt number 266AQE3D. (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
102 MOTION to Stay regarding 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Stay Pending Appeal) (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
103 Memorandum in Support regarding 102 MOTION to Stay regarding 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Finarelli, Joseph) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
104 Transmission of Notice of Appeal and Docket Sheet to US Court of Appeals regarding 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 12/01/2017)
105 US Court of Appeals Case Number 17−7582 (Emily Musser, Case Manager) as to 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Paul G. Butler, Jr. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 12/04/2017)
Motion Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle regarding: 102 MOTION to Stay regarding 101 Notice of Appeal. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 12/05/2017)
106 ORDER − plaintiff's motion to stay ruling on his motion for costs, attorneys' fees, and related expenses (DE 100 ) is GRANTED, and the court holds plaintiff's motion for costs, attorneys' fees, and related expenses (DE 98 ) in ABEYANCE as set forth above. Defendant's motion to stay the proceedings (DE 102 ) is DENIED. Defendant has until March 30, 2018, to implement the State's proposed plan. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to substitute Willis J. Fowler as a defendant in place of Paul G. Butler, Jr. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 1/5/2018. (Agiovlassitis, J.) (Entered: 01/08/2018)
107 OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of INJUNCTIVE RELIEF HEARING for the date of October 27, 2017, before District Judge Terrence W. Boyle, regarding 101 Notice of Appeal. Court Reporter/Amy M. Condon. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Does this satisfy all appellate orders for this reporter? − Yes. Please review Attorney obligations regarding the redaction of electronic transcripts of court proceedings available on the court's website. Redaction Request due 3/18/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/28/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/26/2018. (Condon, A.) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript 107 Appeal Transcript. The parties have seven calendar days from the filing of the transcript to file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. The parties must also serve a copy on the court reporter or transcriber. After filing the Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, a party must submit to the court reporter or transcriber, within 21 calendar days of the filing of the transcript, a written statement indicating where the personal data identifiers to be redacted appear in the transcript. (Condon, A.) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
108 OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT for dates of 7/27/2015, Summary Judgment Hearing,before District Judge Terrence W. Boyle, regarding 101 Notice of Appeal. Court Reporter: Donna Tomawski. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER. Does this satisfy all appellate orders for this reporter? Yes. Please review Attorney obligations regarding the redaction of electronic transcripts of court proceedings available on the court's website. Redaction Request due 3/19/2018. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 3/29/2018. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 5/27/2018. (Foell, S.) (Entered: 02/23/2018)
NOTICE of Filing of Official Transcript 108 Appeal Transcript. The parties have seven calendar days from the filing of the transcript to file a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction. The parties must also serve a copy on the court reporter or transcriber. After filing the Notice of Intent to Request Redaction, a party must submit to the court reporter or transcriber, within 21 calendar days of the filing of the transcript, a written statement indicating where the personal data identifiers to be redacted appear in the transcript. (Foell, S.) (Entered: 02/23/2018)

Case: 5:10-ct-3123 As of: 01/21/2020 03:00 PM EST 12 of 12

03/07/2018 03/08/2018
03/08/2018 03/12/2018 03/12/2018 03/13/2018 03/19/2018
03/20/2018 03/22/2018 03/22/2018 07/11/2018 01/17/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/18/2019 01/22/2019

109 Notice of Appearance filed by Michelle A. Liguori on behalf of Willis J. Fowler. (Liguori, Michelle) (Entered: 03/07/2018)
NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding 109 Notice of Appearance by Michelle A. Liguori. Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(d)(1) requires a certificate of service. Counsel is directed to refile the notice of appearance with an attached certificate of service. When refiling, counsel is reminded that the court prefers flattened pdf fillable forms. Counsel should "flatten" the document prior to uploading it in accordance with Section IV.B of the CM/ECF Policies and Procedures Manual. (Castania, M) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
110 Notice of Appearance filed by Michelle A. Liguori on behalf of Willis J. Fowler. (Liguori, Michelle) (Entered: 03/08/2018)
111 Notice of Appearance filed by Leslie Cooley Dismukes on behalf of Willis J. Fowler. (Dismukes, Leslie) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
112 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Comply with Injunction filed by Willis J. Fowler. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Mary Stevens, # 2 Text of Proposed Order) (Dismukes, Leslie) (Entered: 03/12/2018)
Motion Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle: regarding 112 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to Comply with Injunction. (Love, L.) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
113 ORDER − GRANTING 112 Motion for Extension of Time. The court DIRECTS defendant to implement the proposed plan by July 28, 2018, and to give juvenile offenders whose parole review is scheduled before July 28, 2018, the option to (1) go forward with their parole review as scheduled under the old procedures, (2) reschedule their parole review to a time when the new procedures are in effect, or (3) to proceed twice: once as scheduled under the old procedures and again after the new procedures go into effect. Signed by District Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 3/19/2018. (Love, L.) (Entered: 03/19/2018)
Notification to Appeals Court of Filing regarding 113 Order on Motion for Extension of Time,, (Foell, S.) (Entered: 03/20/2018)
114 ORDER of US Court of Appeals as to 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Willis J. Fowler. (Love, L.) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
115 MANDATE of US Court of Appeals (certified copy) as to 101 Notice of Appeal filed by Willis J. Fowler. (Love, L.) (Entered: 03/22/2018)
116 Notice filed by Willis J. Fowler Withdrawal of Michelle Liguori as Governmental Counsel. (Dismukes, Leslie) (Entered: 07/11/2018)
117 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees filed by Shaun Antonio Hayden. (Finholt, Benjamin) (Entered: 01/17/2019)
Motion Referred to Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court regarding 117 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees. (Love, L.) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
Motion No Longer Referred to the Clerk: 117 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees. (Love, L.) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
Motion Submitted to Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle regarding 117 Consent MOTION for Attorney Fees. (Love, L.) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
118 ORDER − GRANTING 117 Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 1/22/2019. (Love, L.) (Entered: 01/22/2019)