Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00489/USCOURTS-ared-4_20-cv-00489-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Other Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS 

CENTRAL DIVISION 

MEL VIN SMITH, JR. PLAINTIFF 

v. No. 4:20-cv-489-DPM 

LESLIE RUTLEDGE, 

Attorney General, State of 

Arkansas 

ORDER 

DEFENDANT 

1. Smith's application to proceed in forma pauperis, Doc. 1, is 

granted. He has little income and few assets. 

2. The Court must screen his complaint. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). 

It echoes a case dismissed last n1onth for failure to state a claim. Smith 

v. Rutledge, No. 4:20-cv-134-BSM, Doc. 2, 5, & 6. There, Smith alleged he 

was wrongfully sentenced under Arkansas's Fair Sentencing of Minors 

Act of 2017. Because he did not allege he was younger than eighteen 

when he committed first degree murder, or that he was denied a parole 

hearing, Judge Miller dismissed the case. Doc. 5. Smith has refiled that 

claim filling those gaps. 

3. Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012) invalidated life 

sentences without parole for juveniles. Arkansas passed the Fair 

Sentencing of Minors Act in response. Smith was paroled under this 

2017 Act. Doc. 2 at 4. While he presents multiple claims, Smith seeks 

Case 4:20-cv-00489-DPM Document 4 Filed 05/28/20 Page 1 of 3
one thing: monetary damages for being held beyond what he believes 

was his maximum release date and for self-calculated good-time. This 

is, in essence, a due process claim. He first sought this kind of damages 

almost twenty years ago, as part of a case seeking parole. Smith v. 

Norris, 40 Fed. App.'x 305 (8th Cir. 2002), affirming Smith v. Norris, No. 

5:02-cv-2-SWW, Doc. 2. 

Smith relies on Arkansas Act 93 of 1977 to calculate his estimated 

parole eligibility date and earned good-time credit. That Act provided 

that persons sentenced to life imprisonment for felonies committed 

after April 1, 1977 were not parole eligible; they could serve a shorter 

sentence only if the Governor pardoned them or commuted their 

sentence. ARK. CODE ANN. § 16-93-604(b)(l). The Fair Sentencing of 

Minors Act eliminated this pardon/ commutation requirement, making 

Smith, who committed first-degree murder on June 21, 1977, parole 

eligible. Smith v. Rutledge, No. 4:20-cv-134-BSM, Doc 2 at 7. The fact 

that Smith was paroled, however, doesn't entitle him to damages. 

There is no right to parole under the U.S. Constitution. Greenholtz v. 

Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). 

In general, Arkansas's parole statutes do not create an absolute right to 

parole. Pittman v. Gaines, 905 F.2d 199, 201 (8th Cir. 1990). Arkansas's 

post-Miller statutory changes simply moved Smith into a group whose 

members could be considered for parole. Smith's complaint, therefore, 

- 2 -

Case 4:20-cv-00489-DPM Document 4 Filed 05/28/20 Page 2 of 3
fails to state a federal due process claim. Snodgrass v. Robinson, 512 F.3d 

999, 1003 (8th Cir. 2008). It will be dismissed without prejudice. 

4. The Court certifies that an in forma pauperis appeal from this 

Order and accompanying Judgment would not be taken in good faith. 

28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). 

So Ordered. 

D .P. Marshall Jr. 

V 

United States District Judge 

- 3 -

Case 4:20-cv-00489-DPM Document 4 Filed 05/28/20 Page 3 of 3