FI L ED U.S. COURT OF A P P E A LS E LE V EN T H C IR C U IT J ULY 19, 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FO R T HE EL EV EN TH CIRC UI T

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ N o. 05- 1512 7

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ D. C. Docket N o. 05-02017 -CV -T W T- 1

DONALD C. BANKHEAD, Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant,

ve rs us GE ORG IAST AT E B OA RD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES MILTON E. NIX, JR., et a l., D ef en dants -Appe lle es .

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ Appeal f rom the United State s District Court for the N orthern District of Ge orgia

____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ (J ul y 19 , 200 6) Be fo re E D MO N D SO N , Ch ie f Judg e, T JO FL A T and B L A CK , Ci rc uit Jud ge s.2

PE R CU RIA M: Pl ai nti ff -Appe llant D ona ld B ankhe ad , an inm at e in the G eo rg iapr iso n syste m , app eal s p ro se t he di st ric t co urt’s s uasp on te di sm is sa l o f hi s 4 2 U.S.C. § 19 83 cas e fo r fai lu re t o s ta te a cl ai m up on whi ch rel ie f can be gra nt ed , 28 U.S.C. § 1915 A
. R ev er sib le e rr or

e xis ts o n th e dis m iss al of Bankhe ad ’ s e x po st f

ac to cl ai m ; w e va cate and r em an d th e dis tr ic t c ourt’ s di sm iss al or de r on this c la im onl y an d a ffi rm

on hi s re m ai ni ng cla im s. A cc or din g to his c om

pla int , Bankhe ad

be gan se rv ing 20- y ear co nc ur re nt
se nte nc es in N ove m

be r 1991 , f

or vol unt ar y m an sla ught er , a ggr av at ed

a ssa ult , kidna pin g, and b ur glary . O n 9 D ec em be r 1997 , the G eo rg iaS tate Bo ar d of Pard ons an d P ar ole s ( the “ Bo ar d” ) ad opt ed a90 p er ce nt- to- se rv e pol ic y ( the “ 90 pe rcen t p ol ic y ”), wh ic h app li edto all in m at es co nv ic te d a fte r 1 J an ua ry 19 98
. U nde r thi s po lic y , inm at es c onvi ct ed of c er ta in o ff en se s w er e re qui re d to se rv e 90 pe rcen t o f th ei r se nt en ces be fo re b eco m in g e li gi bl e fo r an in it ia l p aro le he ari ng . O n 30 May

200 2, the U nit ed

S tate s D istri ct

Co urt f or the N orthe rnD istri ct

of Ge orgia determ ined that retroactive application of the 90 percent policy to inm ates
w hose of fe nse c ondu ct

oc curr ed be fo re a dopt ionof

the pol ic y

w as an e x po st f

ac to vio latio n. S ee Ja ck son v. S tate Bo ar d of P ar dons and P ar ole s, N o. 2:0 1- CV -0 68- W CO; 2 00 2 WL 16 09 80 4 (N.D. Ga. 2 00 2)
.3

O n 25 Jul y

200 2, the Bo ar d in fo rm ed Bankhe ad

that hi s te ntativ e paro le
m onth (“ TP M”) w as Marc h 200 5. I n July2003 , he wa s notified th at his TPM had be en ch an ge d t o No ve m

be r 20 09 , whi ch was 9 0 p erce ntof h is 20 -y ear s en te nc e. InMarc h 20 05, a

F ult on C ounty

S upe ri or Co urt j udge de cl ar ed

that the 90 p er ce nt pol ic y w as im ple m en te d im

pr ope rl y and, the re fo re , ha d no f

or ce or e ff ec t. T he Board issued a press relea se stating th at it would not appeal this decision and th at it w oul d a ppl y the de ci sio n to a ll ca se s pr ev iou sly c onsi de re d un de r the 90 p er ce nt p o l i c y. Inhis § 19 83 c om

pla int , Bankhe ad

a lle ge d th at

the Bo ar d’ s a ct s inse tti ng his T PM vio late d c onst itutio na l pr ote ct ion s un de r the e x po st f ac to and d

ue pr oc es s c lause s. T he dis tr ic t c ourt c onc lud ed that B ankhe ad

f ai le d to state ac la im fo r a due pr oc es s vi olatio n and that hi s e x po st f ac to c la im

w as m oot , in lig ht o f the Bo ar d’ s 20 05 s tate m en t that i t w oul d r ec onsi de r ca se s a ff ec te d by the 90 pe rcen t p ol ic y . W e re vie wde nov o adis tr ic t c ourt’ s su a spon te dis m iss al of asui t f or failure to state a

claim for r elief. H arden v. Pataki, 320 F.3d 1289 , 1292 (11th Cir. 2003 ). Adis tr ic t c ourt sh oul d no t di sm iss a c om pla int f or f ai lur e to s tate ac la im

“ unl es s it appe ar s be y ond doub t that the pr iso ne r can pr ove no s et of f ac ts i n supp ort of

his c la im w hic h w oul d e nti tle him to re lie f. ” H ar

m on v . Be rr

y , 7284

F. 2d 14 07, 1409 (11t h Cir. 1984 ). A ll allegations in the com plaint m ust be viewed as true. Brown v. Johnso n, 387 F.3d 1344, 1347 (11th Cir. 2004). W e se e no e rr or

in the dis tr ic t c ourt’ s c onc lus ionthat B ankhe ad f ai le d to state adue pr oc es s c la im
. S ee S ult en fu ss v . S now , 35 F
. 3d 1 494, 150 1- 02 ( 11th Cir. 1994 ) (e n banc) (explaining that Georgia’ s parole sy stem does not create a pr ote ct ed li be rty int er es t i n paro le ). T he re fo re , the dis tr ic t c ourt pr ope rl y di sm is se d t hi s cl ai m . But because Bankhead’ s case w as dism issed before defendants filed an
an sw er , it is not c le ar to us whe the r the 90 p er ce nt p oli cy e ve r ap pli ed

to Bankhead’ s sentence. Ther efore, we cannot say it is bey ond d oubtthat Bankhead can prove no facts in suppo rt of his ex post facto claim
. Consequent ly , the district
co urt e rr ed

by dis m iss ing thi s c la im

f or f ai lur e to s tate ac la im
. W e va cate and
re m an d B ankhe ad ’ s e x po st f ac to c la im

and a ff irm on h is r em ai nin g c la im s. AFFIRMED I N PART; VACATED IN PART; AND REMANDED.