FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEVEN T HC IRC UIT NOV 24 , 2006 THOMAS K. KAH

N CLERK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 06- 10777 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C. D o c k e tN o . 0 5 - 0 0 1 9 9 - CV - 5 - RH - W CS A L L E N L . P E N O Y E R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s D E B R A D . B R I G G S , M I K E H A M M , M O N I C A D A V I D , F R E D E R I C K B . D U M P H Y , T E N A M . P A T E , e t a l., D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f orthe N orthe rn D i s tr i c tof F l or i da

_________________________ ( N ove m b e r 24, 2006) B efo re A N D E R S O N , C A RN E S an dP R Y O R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P E R C U R I A M:2

A l l en L . P enoyer , a F l ori da i nm at e, appeal s the di stri ctcourt ’ s order d is m is s in g h is c iv il r ig h ts c o m p la in t u n d e r4 2 U .S .C . § 1 9 8 3 . I n h is c o m p la in t, P e n o y e rn a m e d s e v e n in d iv id u a ls a s d e f e n d a n ts , in c lu d in g th r e e F lo r id aP a r o le C om m i s s i on ( “ the C om m i s s i on” ) m e m be r s , thr e e C om m i s s i on e m pl oy e e s , a nd the S ec re t ary of the F l ori da D epartm entof C orre ct i on s. P enoyeral l eged, am on g o ther th in g s, th at th e C o m m issio n v io lated h is d u e p ro ce ss rig h ts, as w ell as F lo rid a’s g o v e rn m e n t in th e s u n s h in e la w , F la . S ta t. § 2 8 6 .0 1 1 ( 2 0 0 1 ) , a n dth a t c h a n g e s to F l ori da’ s par ol e l aw s vi ol at ed the E x P ostF ac t o cl ause of the U ni t ed S t at es C ons t i tut i on. T he di s tr i c tc ourt , f i ndi ng tha tP e noy e r“ s e e m [ e d] t o a c know l e dge th a t h e k n e w m o r e th a n f o u ry e a r s b e f

o r e f ilin g th is a c tio n th a t th e F lo r id as c h e d u le for par ol e c on si derat i on had chang ed, ” det erm i ned thatP enoyer ’ s c om pl ai ntw as u n t i m el y. O n appe a l , P e noy e ra r gue s tha tthe di s m i s s a l of hi s c om pl a i nt , a s a m e nde d, w a s im p r o p e r . S p e c if

ic a lly , P e n o y e rr e ite r a te s th a t th e C o m m is s io n v io la te dh is d u e p r o c e s s r ig h ts a s w e ll a s s ta te la w . F u rth e r , w ith r e g a r dto h is e x p o s t f a c to cl ai m , P enoyerst at es that“ a c op y of [ the] hear i ng exam i ner[ ’ ] s w ri tt en re po rtw as notf urni s he d t o pe t i t i one rf

ory e a r s , ” a nd tha t“ [ w ] he n [ he ] f i na l l ydi d r e c e i ve the w r itte n r e p o rts f

r o m 1 9 9 9 a n d 2 0 0 4 [ o n o rab o u t th e ] f ir s t p a rt o f

2 0 0 5 , h e b e g a n to p rep are [h i s] co m p l ai n t . ” H e al l eg es th at“ w i th o u t[th o se] d o cu m en t s i t[w as]3

im p o s s ib le to d e te rm in e if a n is s u e e x is t[ e d ].” O n th is b a s is , P e n o y e ra g u e s th a t if the de f e nda nt s ha d “ pr ope r l ya nd t i m e l ypr ovi de d [ hi m ] w i th ac opyof [ the do cum ent s] , he w ou l d h ave been abl e t o t i m el y f i l e [ hi s § 19 83 com pl ai nt ] . ” Be c au s e th i s a c t i o n w a s d i s mi s s e d s u as p o n t e u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B) p ri o r t o serv i n g th e d efen d an t s, th ere i s n o b ri ef fro m th e ap p el l ees. I. A d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s u as p o n te d is m is s a l f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im p u r s u a n t to 28 U . S . C . § 1 91 5(e) (2)( B )( i i ) i s r evi ew ed de no vo , usi ng the sam e s t andards that gove rn F e d. R . C i v. P . 12( b) ( 6) di s m i s s a l s . M i t c he l l v. F a r c a s s , 112 F . 3d 1483, 1489- 90 ( 11th C i r . 1997) . U nde rtha ts t a nda r d, w e “ vi e w [ ] the a l l e ga t i ons i n the c om pl a i nta s true . ” I d. a t1490. F urthe r , ac om pl a i nts houl d notbe di s m i s s e d f or f a i l ur e t o s t a t e ac l a i m unl e s s i tappe a r s be y ond adoubttha tthe pl a i nt i f f c a n pr ove no s e tof f a c t s i n s upportof

hi s c l a i m w hi c h w oul d e nt i t l e hi m t o r e l i e f . M a r s h v. B u tle rC o u n ty , A la ., 2 6 8 F .3 d 1 0 1 4 , 1 0 2 2 - 2 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( e n b a n c ) . A c om pl a i nti s a l s o s ubj e c tt o di s m i s s a l w he n i t s a l l e ga t i ons — on the i rf a c e — s how tha ta n a f

f i rm a t i ve de f

e ns e , s uc h a s the s t a tut e of l i m i t a t i on, ba r s r e c ove ryon the c l a i m . S e e i d. a t1022. W e r e vi e w de novo adi s tr i c tc ourt ’ s rul i ng c onc e rni ng the appl i cabl e s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s and the t ol l i ng of the l i m i t at i on s per i od . U ni t ed S ta te s v . C a rr e ll, 2 5 2 F .3 d 1 1 9 3 , 1 1 9 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) .4

“A d is tr ic t c o u rt’s s u as p o n te d is m is s a l f o rf r iv o lityu n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) is r e v ie w e d f

o rab u s e o f

d is c r e tio n .” H u g h e s v . L o tt, 3 5 0 F .3 d1 1 5 7 , 1 1 6 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . U n d e rth is p r o v is io n , “a n a c tio n is f r iv o lo u s if

it is ‘w ith o u t a r g u ab le m er i tei ther i n l aw or fa ct . ’ ” N api erv. P re sl i cka, 31 4 F . 3d 52 8, 53 1 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ), ce rt . deni ed, 54 0 U . S . 11 12 (200 4).

“ P ro se pl ea di ng s are hel d t o a l es s s tri ng entst andard than p l ea di ng s dra ft ed bya tt orne y s a nd w i l l , the r e f or e , be l i be r a l l yc ons true d. ” H ughe s , 350 a t1160.

II . U po n revi ew of P enoyer ’ s bri ef and the re cord, w e c on cl ud e thatthe di stri ct courtdi d n oterr w hen i ti m pl i ci t l y deni ed P enoyer ’ s due proces s c l ai m i n i t s order di s m i s s i ng the c a s e , a nd l i ke w i s e de c l i ne d t o e xe r c i s e s uppl e m e nt a l j ur i s di c t i on o v er h i s st at e-l aw arg u m en t s. I t is w e ll e s tab lis h e d in th is C ir c u it th a t “th e r e is n o c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to p a r o le in F lo r id a .” J o n a s v . W a in w r ig h t, 7 7 9 F .2 d1 5 7 6 , 1 5 7 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . T h e r e f o r e , th e p a r o le p r o c e s s in F lo r id ais n o t p r o te c te db yth e d u e p r o c e s s c lau s e . M o re o v er , t o th e e x ten t th at P en o ye r m ad e a n ar g u m en t u n d erF lo rid a’s g o v e rn me n ti n th e s u n s h i n e a c ta s p a rto f h i s d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m, i ti s me r i t l e s s . To the ext entthatP enoyer ’ s argum ent s i n thi s r egar d d i d n ototherw i se i m pl i ca t e a f e de r a l r i ght , the yw e r e notpr ope ri s s ue s f ora§ 1983 c om pl a i nt . G r i f f i n v. C i tyof5

O p a - L o c k a , 2 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 3 0 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . F in a lly , e v e n if th e c o u rt c o u ld h a v e e x e r c is e d s u p p le m e n ta l ju r is d ic tio n o v e raF lo r id as ta te - la w c la im , b e c au s e it d i s m i s s e d a l l th e f

e d e r a l i s s u e s th a tg a v e i to r i g i n a l j u r i s d i c t i o n , a n d , b e c au s e we f in d th a t s u c h d is m is s a l w a s ap p r o p r ia te , th e d is tr ic t c o u rt c o rr e c tlyd is m is s e dth is c l a i m a s w e l l . 28 U . S . C . § 1367( c ) ( 3) . F orthe s e r e a s ons , the di s tr i c tc ourtdi d not err i n d i sm i ssi n g b o th o f th ese cl ai m s. II I. A ddr e s s i ng f

i r s tthe di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s t i m e l i ne s s f i ndi ngs , w e not e tha tthe l e n g th o f th e l i m i t a t i o n s p e r i o d g o v e rn i n g a§ 1 9 8 3 a c t i o n i s d i c t a t e db ys t a t e l a w. W i l s on v. G a r c i a , 471 U . S . 261, 270- 275, 105 S . C t . 1938, 1943- 1947, 85 L . E d. 2d 254 ( 1985) . A c c or di ngl y , i n F l or i da , the s t a t e ’ s f our - y e a rr e s i dua l s t a tut e of l i m i t at i on s app l i es . C i ty of H i al eah v . R oj as , 31 1 F . 3d 10 96 , 11 02 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 02 ); F l a. S t at . 95 . 11 (3)( p). N e ve rthe l e s s , the t i m e of a c c rua l of

the c aus e of

a c t i on i s gove rne d by f e de r a l l a w . L ove ttv. R a y , 327 F . 3d 1181, 1182 ( 11th C i r . 2003) . “ G e ne r a l l y , the s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s d o e s n o t b e g in to ru n u n til th e f a c ts w h ic h w o u lds u p p o rt a c au s e o f a c tio n a r e ap p a r e n t o rs h o u ldb e ap p a r e n t to ap e r s o n w ith ar e a s o n ab ly prud entre gard for hi s r i gh t s. ” I d. (quo t at i on om i tt ed). S peci fi ca l l y, a pl ai nt i ff

“ m us tknow orha ve r e a s on t o know tha t[ he w a s ] i nj ur e d, a nd m us tbe a w a r e or6

s houl d be a w a r e of

w ho i nf l i c t e d the i nj ury . ” R oz a rv. M ul l i s , 85 F . 3d 556, 562 ( 11th C i r . 1996) . S t a t e d di f f e r e nt l y , onc e P e noy e r“ kne w , ors houl d ha ve know n, a l l of the f a c t s ne c e s s a ryt o pur s ue ac aus e of a c t i on, ” the s t a tut e of

l i m i t a t i ons b e g a n to ru n . L o v e tt, 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 2 . A n a ly z in g th is is s u e , “ac o u rt [ m u s t] fi rs t. . . i dent i fythe al l eged i nj uri es , and then . . . det erm i ne w hen [the] pl ai nt i ff[] c o u ldh a v e s u e d f

o rth e m .” R o z a r , 8 5 F .3 da t 5 6 2 .

“ T o d i sm i ss a p ri so n er’ s co m p l ai n tas t i m e-b arred p ri o r t o serv i ce, i tm u st

‘ appe a rbe y ond adoubtf r om the c om pl a i nti t s e l f tha t[ the pr i s one r ] c a n pr ove no se tof fa ct s w hi ch w ou l d avo i d a st atut e of l i m i t at i on s bar . ’ ” H ug hes, 35 0 F . 3d at 11 63 (r ever si ng i n p artt o al l ow pl ai nt i ff t o am end h i s c om pl ai nti f he c ou l d “ pl ea d fa ct s thatw ou l d sup po rta f i nd i ng thatthe st atut e of l i m i t at i on s [ had] been t ol l ed”) .

“ T he i nt er es t s of j ust i ce , ho w ever , can w ei gh i n favor of al l ow i ng a pl ai nt i ff t o ass ertun t i m el y c l ai m s i f c i rc um st ance s bey on d the pl ai nt i ff’ s c on trol prevent ed tim e lyf ilin g .” A r c e v . G ar c ia , 4 3 4 F .3 d1 2 5 4 , 1 2 6 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) .“E q u itab le t ol l i ng i s app ropri at e w hen a m ov antun t i m el y f i l es because of e xtra ordi nary c ir c u m s ta n c e s th a t a r e b o th b e y o n dh is c o n tr o l a n du n a v o id ab le e v e n w ith d ilig e n c e .” S a n d v ikv . U n ite d S ta te s , 1 7 7 F .3 d1 2 6 9 , 1 2 7 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) . E q u itab le to llin g is o n lyp r o p e ro n th e c o u rt’s “f in d in g [ th a t] a n in e q u itab le e v e n t . . . p r e v e n te d p la in tif

f’s tim e lya c tio n ,” a n dth e p la in tif f b e a r s th e b u r d e n o f

p r o o f .7

Ju st i ce v . U n i t ed S t at es, 6 F . 3 d 1 4 7 4 , 1 4 7 9 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 3 ). N ev erth el ess,

“ [ e qui t abl e ] t ol l i ng i s a n e xtr a or di na ryr e m e dy . ” I d. A d d r e s s in g th e m e r its o f P e n o y e r ’s c la im , w e n o te th a t th e F x P o s t F a c to c l au s e o f th e Un i t e d S t a t e s C o n s t i tu t i o n p r o h i b i t s th e s t a t e s f r o m m a k i n g l a ws “w h ic h , b yr e tr o a c tiv e o p e r a tio n , in c r e a s e th e p u n is h m e n t f o rac r im e a f

te rits c om m i s s i on. ” G a rne rv. J one s , 529 U . S . 244, 249, 120 S . C t . 1362, 1367 142 L . E d. 2d 246 ( 2000) . W hi l e “ [ r ] e tr oa c t i ve c ha nge s i n l a w s gove rni ng pa r ol e of pri soners , i n som e i nst ance s, m aybe vi ol at i ve of thi s pre ce pt [, ] no tevery r e tr oa c t i ve pr oc e dur a l c ha nge c r e a t i ng ar i s k of a f f e c t i ng a n i nm a t e ’ s t e rm s or c ondi t i ons of

c onf i ne m e nti s pr ohi bi t e d. ” I d. a t250, 120 S . C t . a t1367. T he de t e rm i na t i ve que s t i on i s “ w he the rr e tr oa c t i ve appl i c a t i on of the c ha nge i n [ the s t a t e ] l a w c r e a t e d ‘ as uf f i c i e ntr i s k of

i nc r e a s i ng the m e a s ur e of puni s hm e nt a tt a c he d t o the c ove r e d c r i m e s . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng C a l i f orni aD e pt . of

C orr e c t i ons v. M or a l e s , 514 U . S . 499, 509, 115 S . C t . 1597, 1603, 131 L . E d. 2d 588 ( 1995) ( h o ld in g th a t aC a lif

o rn iala w d idn o t v io la te th e E x P o s t F a c to c lau s e b e c au s e it cr ea t ed on l y an i nsi gn i fi cantri sk thatcovered i nm at es w ou l d suffe r i ncre as ed pu ni shm ent )) . F i nal l y, the pl ai nt i ff bear s the bu rden of show i ng thatthe l aw

“ cr ea t e[ s] a s i gn i fi cantri sk of i ncre as i ng hi s pun i shm ent . ” I d. at25 5, 12 0 S . C t . at 1370.8

Al th o u g h i ti s n o te n t i r e l yc l e a rwh i c h p a rt i c u l a rl a w( s ) a r e a ti s s u e h e r e , we h a v e r e v i e we d F l o r i d a ’ s c h a n g i n g p a r o l e l a ws b e f o r e . I n 1 9 8 5 , f

o re x a m p l e , we h el d th atl aw s ad o p t ed tw o years earli er “ i n an effo rtt o el i m i n at e th e arb i trari n ess an d cap ri ci o u sn ess th ath ad crep ti n t o th e o l dsyst em , ” d i dn o tv i o l at e th e E x P o st F a c to c lau s e b e c au s e th e yd idn o th in g to c h a n g e th e f a c t th a t “th e u ltim a te di sc re t i on on parol e r em ai ned w i th the [C ] om m i ss i on , ” and the changes t o the l aw onl ya f f e c t e d “ the m a nne ri n w hi c h i te xe r c i s e [ d] thi s pow e r . ” J ohns on v. W a in w r ig h t, 7 7 2 F .2 d 8 2 6 , 8 2 7 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 5 ) ; s e e a ls o D a m ia n o v . F la . P a r o le & P r o b . C o m m ’n , 7 8 5 F .2 d 9 2 9 , 9 3 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) ( p e rc u r ia m ) ( c h a n g e s to pa r ol e l a w s a dopt e d i n 1978 di d nota f f e c tthe C om m i s s i on’ s c om pl e t e di s c r e t i on a n d d idn o t v io la te th e E x P o s t F a c to c lau s e a s to in m a te c o n v ic te din 1 9 7 4 ) . In 19 97 , F l ori da am ended i t s s t atut es further. P ri or t o 1 99 7, F l ori da i nm at es w e r e i nt e rvi e w e d f

orar e vi e w of

the i rP P R D e ve rytw o y e a r s . F l a . S t a t . § 947. 174 ( 2001) ; s e e a l s o T uf

f v. S t a t e , 732 S o. 2d 461, 462 n. 1 ( F l a . D i s t . C t . A pp. 1999) (not i ng thatfr om 19 70 un t i l 19 97 subsequentparol e i nt ervi ew s w er e c on du ct ed e ve rytw o y e a r s ) . T he s t a tut e e na c t e d tha ty e a ri s s t i l l i n f or c e . S e c t i on 947. 174 n o w d ir e c ts , in r e le v a n t p a rt, th a t, w h ile th e d e f au lt f r e q u e n c yo f

s u c h in te rv ie w s is tw o y e a r s , [f ] or any i nm at e c on vi ct ed of m urder, att em pt ed m urder, se xu al ba tt e ry , a tt e m pt e d s e xua l ba tt e ry , orw ho ha s be e n s e nt e nc e d t o a9

2 5 - y e a rm in im u m m a n d a to rys e n te n c e . . . , [ s u b s e q u e n t in te rv ie w s to re vi ew the i nm at e’ s P P R D ] shal l t ake pl ac e once w i thi n 5 ye ar s a ft er the i ni t i a l i nt e rvi e w a nd onc e e ve ry5 y e a r s the r e a f t e ri f the [ C ]o m m is s io n f

in d s th a t it is n o t r e a s o n ab le to e x p e c t th a t p a r o le w ill be grant ed ata heari ng du ri ng the fol l ow i ng ye ar s and st at es the base s f orthe f i ndi ng i n w r i t i ng. F la . S ta t. § 9 4 7 .1 7 4 ( 1 ) ( a ) - ( b ) ( 2 0 0 1 ) . F orpurpos e s of

thi s appe a l , w e a s s um e a r gue ndo tha tthe C om m i s s i on r e p e a te d lyr e f

u s e d to g iv e P e n o y e rc e rta in d o c u m e n ts h e r e q u e s te dc o n c e rn in g h is e lig ib ilityf

o rp a r o le , a n d a s ar e s u lt, h e d idn o t k n o w a ll h e n e e d e dto k n o w to f ile a§ 1 9 8 3 c la im u n til s o m e p o in t a f te rth e s ta te la w g o v e rn in g f r e q u e n c yo f

p a r o le hear i ng s had changed. H ow ever , as di sc usse d b el ow , w e c an af fi rm the di stri ct c o u rt’s o r d e ru n d e r§ 1 9 1 5 ( e ) ( 2 ) ( B ) ( i) . S e e P a rk s v . C ityo f W a rn e rR o b in s , G a ., 4 3 F .3 d 6 0 9 , 6 1 3 (1 1 th C ir. 1 9 9 5 ) ( h o ld in g w e c an “aff irm th e d istrict co u rt’s deci si on on any a dequ at e groun d, even i f i ti s other than the on e on w hi ch the court a c tu a llyr e lie d ” ) . W e ha ve nota ddr e s s e d w he the rthe c urr e ntve r s i on of § 947. 174 vi ol a t e s the E x P os tF a c t o c l aus e . H ow e ve r , the S upr e m e C ourtha s of f e r e d gui da nc e on the is s u e . I n M o r a le s , th e S u p r e m e C o u rt ap p r o v in g lya n a ly z e daC a lif o rn iap a r o le st atut e thatal l ow ed C al i forni a’ s par ol e board “ t o d ef ersubsequent[par ol e] he a r i ngs f

orup t o thr e e y e a r s i f

the pr i s one rha [ d] be e n c onvi c t e d of m or e tha n one o ffen se w h i ch i n v o l v e[d ] th e t ak i n g o f a l i fe an di f th e [b ] o ard [fo u n d ] th ati t[w as]10

notr e a s onabl e t o e xpe c ttha tpa r ol e w oul d be gr a nt e d a tahe a r i ng dur i ng the f ol l ow i ng y e a r s a nd s t a t e [ d] the ba s e s f orthe f i ndi ng. ” M or a l e s , 514 U . S . a t503, 1 1 5 S. Ct . a t1 6 0 0 . Th e Sup r e me Co u rtf o u n dth a tth i s l a w d i dn o tv i o l a t e th e Ex P os tF a c t o c l aus e be c aus e : ( 1) i tappl i e d t o ana rr ow c l a s s of pr i s one r s “ f

orw hom the l i ke l i hood of

r e l e a s e on pa r ol e i s qui t e r e m ot e ” ; ( 2) i tonl ya f f e c t e d s ubs e que nt hear i ng s, m eani ng thati tnever appl i ed un t i l fi nd i ng s of an i ni t i al hear i ng had b ee n m a de ; ( 3) i tr e qui r e d C a l i f orni a ’ s boa r d t o m a ke s pe c i f i c f i ndi ngs j us t i f

y i ng the de f e rr a l ; a nd ( 4) i tr e qui r e d tha tthe de f e rr a l be puti n w r i t i ng. I d. a t509- 11, 115 S . C t . at16 03 -04. F urther, the S up re m e C ou rtno t ed thatthe st atut e e st abl i shed a n n u a l h e a r in g s a s ad e f au lt. I d . a t 5 1 1 - 1 2 , 1 1 5 S .C t. a t 1 6 0 4 . T he S up re m e C ou rtconcl ud ed i n M oral es thatbecause of the “ part i cul ar i ze d fi n d i n g s” th e l aw req u i red , co m b i n ed w i th th e b o ard ’ s “ b ro ad d i scret i o n , ” th e cl ass o f p r is o n e r s th a t th e s ta tu te a f f e c te dc o u ldn o t “r e a s o n ab lye x p e c t th a t th e ir pr os pe c t s f

ore a r l yr e l e a s e on pa r ol e w oul d be e nha nc e d bythe opportuni tyof a nnua l he a r i ngs . ” I d. a t512, 115 S . C t . a t1604. T hus , r a the rtha n i nc r e a s e the p r is o n e r ’s p u n is h m e n t, th e s ta tu te m e r e lya llo w e dC a lif o rn ia ’s p a r o le b o a r dto

“ a voi d the f

ut i l i tyof goi ng thr ough the m ot i ons of r e a nnounc i ng i t s de ni a l of p a r o le s u itab ilityo n ay e a r lyb a s is .” I d . A c c o r d in g ly , h o ld in g th a t th e s ta tu te c r e a t e d “ onl ythe m os ts pe c ul a t i ve a nd a tt e nua t e d r i s k of i nc r e a s i ng the m e a s ur e of11

p u n is h m e n t a tta c h e d to th e c o v e r e dc r im e s ,” th e S u p r e m e C o u rt f o u n dth a t it d id n o t v io la te th e E x P o s t F a c to c lau s e . I d . a t 5 1 4 , 1 1 5 S .C t. a t 1 6 0 5 . S e c tio n 9 4 7 .1 7 4 b e a r s m a rk e ds im ila r itie s to th e C a lif o rn ias ta tu te a t is s u e in M o r a le s . F ir s t, it ap p lie s o n lyto an a rr o w c la s s o f p r is o n e r s , th o u g h it is s lig h tly b r o a d e rth a n C a lif

o rn ia ’s . S e c o n d , it o n lya f f e c ts th e tim in g o f

s u b s e q u e n t p a r o le h ea rin g s, n o t th e in it ial h ea rin g . T h ird , sim il arto th e C alifo rn ia law , F lo rid a’s s ta tu te r e q u ir e s th e s p e c if ic f in d in g th a t “it is n o t r e a s o n ab le to e x p e c t th a t p a r o le w ill b e g r a n te d a t ah e a r in g d u r in g th e f o llo w in g [ f

iv e ] y e a r s .” F la . S ta t. § 947. 174( 1) ( b) . F i na l l y , i tr e qui r e s the C om m i s s i on t o s upporti t s de c i s i on by e x p la in in g it in w r itin g . B a s e d o n th e f o r e g o in g , a s in M o r a le s , it ap p e a r s th a t th is s t a tut e w a s c r a f

t e d t o r e duc e the “ f

ut i l e ” w ork of

f r e que nt l y“ r e a nnounc i ng” the de ni a l of pa r ol e t o ac l a s s of

pr i s one r s w ho, i n the C om m i s s i on’ s br oa d di s c r e t i on, w e r e v e ryu n lik e lyto w a rr a n t it. A c c o r d in g ly , P e n o y e rh a s n o t a lle g e df a c ts s how i ng tha tc ha nge s i n the l a w “ c r e a t e [ d] as i gni f i c a ntr i s k” of

i nc r e a s i ng the l ength o f hi s i m pri sonm ent , and, as i n M oral es , w e c on cl ud e thathe fa i l ed t o st at e a cogn i zabl e E x P ostF ac t o cl ause vi ol at i on as a m att erof l aw . A cc ord T uff v. S t at e, 73 2 S o. 2d 46 1, 46 6 (F l a. D i st . C t . A pp . 19 99 ). A c c or di ngl y , P e noy e r ’ s e x pos tf a c t o c l a i m l a c ks a r guabl e m e r i ta nd the di stri ctcourtprop er l y di sm i ss ed hi s c om pl ai ntas fr i vo l ou s und erPenoyer’ s reque st for oral argument is denied. 1 12 § 1 9 1 5 (e )( 2 )( B )( i). N ap ier, 3 1 4 F .3 dat 5 3 1 . T h is b ein g so , an das all o f P en o ye r’s o th e rc la im s s im ila r lyla c km e r it, w e a f f irm th e d is tr ic t c o u rt’s d is m is s a l o f h is c o m p la in t. A FFI R M ED 1