FILED U.S. COURT OF AP P EALS E LEV EN T HC IRC U IT JUNE 27, 2007 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. 07- 10629 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 05 -024 62 -C V -T C B -1 W I L L I A M M . T A Y L O R , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I L T O N E . N I X , J R ., C h a irm a n , S ta te B o a r d o f P a r d o n s a n d P a r o le s , G A R L A N D R . H U N T , V ic e - C h a irm a n , G A R D F I E L D H A M M O N D S , J R ., E U G E N E P . W A L K E R , L . G A L E B U C K N E R , M e m b e r s , 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 o rth e N o r th e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( Ju n e 27, 2007) B efo re D U B IN A , B L A C K an d M A R C U S , C i rcu i tJu d g es.2

P E R C U R I A M: A p p e lla n t W illia m T a y lo r( “T a y lo r ” ) , aG e o r g ias ta te p r is o n e r , ap p e a ls p ro se th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d is m is s a l, p u r s u a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A , o f h is s ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s c l a i m , a s w e l l a s the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s or de rgr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e ntf

orthe f i ve na m e d m e m be r s of

the G e or gi aS t a t e B oa r d of P a r dons a nd P a r ol e s ( “ B oa r d” ) on the r e m a i ni ng c l a i m s a s s e r t e d i n hi s s e c ond a m e n d e d c o m p la in t. T a y lo ra ls o ap p e a ls th e d is tr ic t c o u r t’s d e n ia l o f h is m o tio n to c o m p e l th e d is c o v e ry o f c e r ta in p r iv ile g e d d o c u m e n ts , a n d its f a ilu r e to e x e r c is e its e qui t abl e pow e r s t o f

or c e the B oa r d t o gr a nthi m pa r ol e . A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the r e c o r d a n d r e a d in g th e p a r tie s ’ b r ie f s , w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

d is m is s a l. I. S u b s ta n tiv e D u e P r o c e s s Cla im

“ W e rev i ew a d i stri ctco u rt ’ s s ua s p o n te d is m is s a l o f

a[ c la im ] f

o rf a ilu r e to st at e acl ai m for r el i ef

un der § 19 15 A (b)( 1) de no vo . ” H arden v. P ataki , 320 F . 3d 1 2 8 9 , 1 2 9 2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 3 ) . P ro se bri ef s, such as T ay l or’ s app el l at e bri ef , ar e e n title d to lib e r a l c o n s tru c tio n . C of i eld v. A la. P ub l i c Serv. C om m ’n , 936 F . 2d 512, 5 1 4 n .2 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . T he P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef orm A ctof 19 95 (“ P L R A ”) re qu i re s adi stri ctcourt t o screen p ri so n er ci v i l ri g h t s act i o n s. 2 8 U . S . C . § 1 9 1 5 A (a). A d i stri ctco u rtm u st

“ re vi ew , before do cket i ng , i f f ea si bl e or, i n any event , as soon as prac t i cabl e a ft er3

d o c k e t i n g , ac o mp l a i n ti n ac i v i l a c t i o n i n w h i c h ap r i s o n e rs e e k s r e d r e s s f r o m a go vernm ent al ent i ty or off i ce r or e m pl oyee of a gov ernm ent al ent i ty. ” I d. A di stri ctcourtm ustdi sm i ss the cl ai m i f i t“ i s f ri vo l ou s, m al i ci ou s, or fa i l s t o st at e a c la im u p o n w h ic h r e lie f m a y b e g r a n te d .” 2 8 U .S .C . 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) ( 1 ) . I n thi s c a s e , the di s tr i c tc our tdi s m i s s e d T a y l or ’ s due pr oc e s s c l a i m f or f a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im u p o n w h ic h r e lie f c o u ld b e g r a n te d . A c o m p la in t f a ils to s t a t e ac l a i m upon w hi c h r e l i e f m a y be gr a nt e d w he n “ ‘ i tappe a r s be y ond doubt th a t th e p la in tif

f c a n p r o v e n o s e t o f

f a c ts in s u p p o r t o f

h is c la im w h ic h w o u ld ent i t l e hi m t o rel i ef

. ’ ” M a rs 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 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . S e c tio n 1 9 8 3 d o e s n o t c r e a te a n y s u b s ta n tiv e r ig h ts . A lm a n d v . D eKa lb C ount y, G a. , 1 0 3 F . 3 d 1 5 1 0 , 1 5 1 2 (1 1 th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ). “ [I] tm erel y p ro v i d es a re m edy f or depri vat i on s of f

eder al st atut ory a nd const i tut i on al ri gh t s. ” I d. To sust ai n a cause of a ct i on un der § 19 83 , a pl ai nt i ff m ustprov e thathe w as depri ved o f af e d e r a l r ig h t b y ap e r s o n a c tin g u n d e rc o lo ro f s ta te la w . G r i

f f i n v . C i t y of O pa - L ocka , 2 6 1 F .3 d 1 2 9 5 , 1 3 0 3 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T he D ue P r oc e s s C l a us e pr ovi de s tha t“ [ n] o S t a t e s ha l l . . . de pr i ve a ny p e r s o n o f

l i f e , l i b e r ty , o rp r o p e r ty , w i th o u td u e p r o c e s s o f l a w . ” U . S. C ON ST . a m e n d . X I V , § 1 . “T h e s u b s ta n tiv e c o m p o n e n t o f th e D u e P r o c e s s C la u s e p r o te c ts4

thos e r i ght s tha ta r e ‘ f

unda m e nt a l , ’ tha ti s , r i ght s tha ta r e ‘ i m pl i c i ti n the c onc e ptof ordered l i berty. ’ ” V

i ny ar d v . W

i l s on , 311 F . 3d 1340, 1356 ( 11th C i r . 2002) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . “ S ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s r i ght s a r e c r e a t e d by the C on st i tut i on , and ‘ no am ou ntof proces s c an j ust i fy[thei r] i nfri ng em ent . ’ ” I d. (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). In o rd er t o h av e a su b st an t i v e d u e p ro cess cl ai m , T ayl o r m u st ha ve as ubs t a nt i ve r i ghtc r e a t e d by the C ons t i tut i on. I n a n a ly z in g as u b s ta n tiv e d u e p r o c e s s c la im , ac o u r t m u s t in itia lly c r a f t a

“ ‘ ca re ful desc ri pt i on of the as se rt ed ri gh t . ’ ” D o e v. Mo o re , 410 F . 3d 1337, 1343 ( 11th C i r . 2005) ( c i t a t i ons om i tt e d) . S e c ond, ac our t“ m us tde t e rm i ne w he the rthe as se rt ed ri gh ti s one of tho se fund am ent al ri gh t s a nd l i bert i es w hi ch ar e, obj e c t i ve l y , de e pl y r oot e d i n thi s N a t i on’ s hi s t ory a nd tr a di t i on, a nd i m pl i c i ti n the conceptof ordered l i berty, such thatnei ther l i berty nor j ust i ce w ou l d exi sti f they w er e s ac ri fi ce d. ” I

d. (c i t at i on s a nd i nt ernal qu ot at i on m arks om i tt ed).

“ [T ] here i s no feder al const i tut i on al ri gh tt o p ar ol e. ” J one s v . R ay , 279 F . 3d 944, 946 ( 11th C i r . 2001) ( c i t i ng G reen h o l t z v. In m a tes o

f N eb . P en a l

& C o rr. C om pl ex , 4 4 2 U .S . 1 , 7 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 1 0 0 , 2 1 0 4 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ) .

“ [ C ] onduc tby agove rnm e nta c t orw i l l r i s e t o the l e ve l of as ubs t a nt i ve due proces s vi ol at i on on l y i f the ac tca n b e c hara ct er i ze d as a rbi tra ryor consci ence shocki ng i n a const i tut i on al se nse. ” W addel l v. H endry C ou nt

y Sheri f f’s O f f i ce ,Ta ylor did no t arguebe fo rethedis tric t c ourt and , even liberally

c on str uinghis 1 appellatebrief, doe s not argue on appe al that the B oard violate d his due proce ss rights by relying on erroneous or improper documents in his clemency file in deny

ing him parole. Cf. Monroe v. Thigpen , 9 32 F .2 d 1 43 7, 14 42 (1 1th Cir . 1 99 1) . There fo re , T aylor ha s w aive d a

ny error with respe ct to this iss ue. See Un ited S tates v. S ilvestri , 409 F.3d 1311, 1338 n.18 ( 11th Cir.), c e rt. denied, 126 S. Ct . 772 (2005). 5 32 9 F . 3d 13 00 , 13 05 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). “ ‘ [O ] nl y the m ostegre gi ou s off i ci al cond uctca n b e s ai d t o b e a rbi tra ryi n the const i tut i on al se nse. ’ ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed). A f te rr e v ie w in g th e r e c o r d , w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t e rrin d i s mi s s i n g Ta y l o r ’ s s u b s t a n t i v e d u e p r o c e s s c l a i m. L i be r a l l y c ons trui ng hi s appe l l a t e br i e f , T a y l ora l l e ge s tha tbutf orthe B oard’ s a rbi tra ryand capri ci ou s a ct i on s he w ou l d h ave been parol ed. T ay l or, h o w e v e r , c ite s n o c a s e la w h o ld in g th a t alif e - s e n te n c e d p r is o n e rh a s ar ig h t to p a r o le , a n d , to th e c o n tr a ry , th e r e is n o f e d e r a l c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t to p a r o le . See Jones , 279 F . 3d a t946. H e a l s o c i t e s no c a s e l a w r e c ogni z i ng as ubs t a nt i ve due p r o c e s s v io la tio n in af

a ilu r e to f

o llo w c e r ta in p r o c e d u r e s in c o n s id e r in g ap a r o le req u est . A cco rd i n g l y, T ayl o r d i d n o tasserta co g n i zab l e su b st an t i v e d u e p ro cess c la im in h is f

ir s t c o m p la in t, a n d w e c o n c lu d e th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t p r o p e r ly d is m is s e d it. 1 A ls o , to th e e x te n t th a t T a y lo r ’s ap p e lla te b r ie f m a y b e lib e r a lly c o n s tru e d to a l l e ge tha tthe di s tr i c tc our te rr e d i n f a i l i ng t o rul e on hi s m ot i on f or6

r e c o n s id e r a tio n o f

th e d is m is s a l o f

h is d u e p r o c e s s c la im , s u c h a n a r g u m e n t is w i tho utm er i t . T he di stri ctcourtdi d rul e on thi s m ot i on , concl ud i ng thati tw as m oo tbecause T ay l or fi l ed a s ec on d am ended com pl ai nt– w hi ch di d n oti ncl ud e a s ubs t a nt i ve due pr oc e s s c l a i m – be f or e i tc oul d rul e on the m e r i t s of hi s m ot i on f

or r e c o n s id e r a tio n . II. D en ial of Motion to Compel W e r evi ew the deni al of a pl ai nt i ff’ s m ot i on t o com pel di sc ov ery f or an ab u s e o f d is c r e tio n . Hi nson v. C l i nch C ou nt y, G eorgi a B d. of

E du c. , 231 F . 3d 821, 8 2 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ) . U nd erthe F eder al R ul es of C i vi l P roce du re , a party “ m ayob t ai n d i sc ov ery r e g a r d in g a n y m a tte r , no t pri vi l eged , tha ti s r e l e va ntt o the c l a i m orde f e ns e of a ny party. ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 26 (b) ( em ph as i s a dd ed). U nde rG e or gi al a w , “ [ a ] l l i nf orm a t i on, both or a l a nd w r i tt e n, r e c e i ve d by the m e m b e r s o f

th e b o a r d in th e p e r f

o rm a n c e o f

th e ird u tie s u n d e rth is c h ap te ra n d a ll r e c or ds , pape r s , a nd doc um e nt s c om i ng i nt o the i rpos s e s s i on by r e a s on of the perf orm ance of thei r dut i es un der thi s c hapt ershal l be cl as si fi ed as confi dent i al s ta te s e c r e ts u n til d e c la s s if ie d b y ar e s o lu tio n o f

th e b o a r d p a s s e d a t ad u ly const i tut ed se ss i on of the bo ar d. ” O . C . G . A . § 4 2-9-53 (b). T he re cord dem on stra t es thatthe di stri ctcourt , af t erre vi ew i ng the cont es t edAlthough T aylor argued bef ore thedistrict court that the B oard w aived this privileg e by 2 including someof the documents in its s ummary judgment brief, hedoes not present any such argument on appeal, nor does he c ite to any decisions involving waiver of a privileg e. Consequently, Taylor has aba ndoned his waiver claim on appeal. See Ac c ess N ow, In c . v. S

w. Airlines Co. , 385 F.3d 1324, 1330 ( 11th Cir. 2004) (“[A] legal claim or argument that has not been briefe d before the c ourt is deemed a bandoned a

nd its merits willnot be addressed” ). We alsoc on c ludethat T aylor ’saltern ativ eargument, that th eB oa rd only prod uc e d s ix 3 of the c ontested documents and withheld other documents, is unsupported by the re cord. The B oa rd prod uc e d mo retha

n s ix documentsfo r t

hedis tric t c ourt ’s in c am e rareview, and thereis no thingin t

here c ord tosug g e st that th eB oa rd withh e ld a

ny oth er documentstha

t w erefoun d in Taylor’s clemency

file. 7 d o cu m en t s in ca m era , expl i ci t l y f ou nd thatthey w er e s ubj ec tt o the confi dent i al st at e s ec re t s pri vi l ege. R ather than chal l engi ng thi s rul i ng on appeal , ho w ever , T a y l ore xc l us i ve l y a r gue s i n hi s appe l l a t e br i e f tha the w a s e nt i t l e d t o the d o cu m en t s b ecau se th ey w ere relevan tt o h i s ret al i at i o n cl ai m . B y v i rtu e o f th i s, w e c o n clu d e th at T ay lo r h as w aiv ed an y e rr o r w ith re sp ec t t o th e d istrict co u rt’s f i ndi ng tha tthe pr i vi l e ge appl i e d. See S i lvestri , 40 9 F . 3d at 13 38 n. 18 . T hu s, even 2 a s s um i ng ar

gue ndo th atth e d o cu m en t s w ere relevan tt o o n e o r m o re o f h i s cl ai m s, they w er e s t i l l subj ec tt o the confi dent i al st at e s ec re t s pri vi l ege a nd , there fore , w er e no tdi sc ov er abl e pursuantt o F ed. R . C i v. P . 26 (b). 3 III. E xP o s t Fa c to Cla im We r e v i e w de no vo ad is tr ic t c o u r t’s g r a n t o f s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t. T

w in C ity F i re Ins. C o. , Inc. v. O hi o C as. Ins. C o. , Inc. , 48 0 F . 3d 12 54 , 12 58 (11th C i r. 2 0 0 7 ) . S i m i l a r l y , “ [ w] e r e v i e w de no vo the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nt e rpr e t a t i on a nd appl i ca t i on of the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s. ” B ro w n v. G eo rg i a B d. o f P a rdo n s &8

P arol es , 33 5 F . 3d 12 59 , 12 61 n. 2 (11 th C i r. 20 03 ). S um m a ry j udgm e nti s appr opr i a t e w he n “ the r e i s no ge nui ne i s s ue a s t o a ny m at er i al fa ct ” a nd “ the m ov i ng party i s e nt i t l ed t o a j ud gm entas a m att erof l aw . ” F ed. R . C i v. P . 56 (c ). A court“ shou l d v i ew the evi dence and any i nfer ence s that m aybe draw n i n the l i gh tm ostfa vo rabl e t o the no n-m ov i ng party. ” P or te rv . R ay , 4 6 1 F .3 d 1 3 1 5 , 1 3 2 0 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 1 2 7 S . C t. 5 1 6 ( 2 0 0 6 ) .

“ ‘ F eder al court s app l y thei r f orum st at e’ s s t atut e of l i m i t at i on s f or pers on al i nj ury a ct i on s t o act i on s broug htpu rs uantt o 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 98 3. ’ ” L ov e t t v . R ay , 327 F . 3d 1181, 1182 ( 11th C i r . 2003) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . G e or gi a ’ s s t a tut e of l i m i t at i on s f

or pers on al i nj ury a ct i on s, and, thu s, the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s f or a § 1 9 8 3 c la im a r is in g o u t o f e v e n ts o c c u rr in g in th a t s ta te , is tw o y e a r s . I d.

“ F eder al l aw det erm i nes w hen the st atut e of l i m i t at i on s begi ns t o run . ” L o v e tt , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 2 . T h e s ta tu te o f lim ita tio n s o r d in a r ily “‘d o e s n o t b e g in to run unt i l the f

a c t s w hi c h w oul d s uppor tac a us e of a c t i on a r e appa r e ntors houl d be apparentt o a pers on w i th a re as on abl y prudentre gard for hi s r i gh t s. ’ ” I d. ( c i t a t i on om i tt ed).

“ ‘ T he c r i t i c a l di s t i nc t i on i n the c ont i nui ng vi ol a t i on a na l y s i s i s w he the rthe pl ai nt i ff com pl ai ns of the pres entconsequence of a one t i m e vi ol at i on , w hi ch do es note xt e nd the l i m i t a t i ons pe r i od, orthe c ont i nua t i on of tha tvi ol a t i on i nt o the9

pres ent , w hi ch do es . ’ ” L o v e tt , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 3 ( c ita tio n o m itte d ) . I n L o v e tt , w e a ddr e s s e d as i m i l a rc l a i m tha tthe G e or gi aB oa r d of P a r dons a n d P a r o le s ’s d e c is io n to d e la y a n in m a te ’s p a r o le h e a r in g , p u r s u a n t to an e w ly i m pl em ent ed B oard po l i cy , const i tut ed a c on t i nu i ng vi ol at i on of hi s c on st i tut i on al r ig h ts a g a in s t Ex P o st Fa c to la w s . I d. W e ul t i m a t e l y c onc l ude d tha tthe de c i s i on n o t to c o n s id e ra n in m a te f o rp a r o le a g a in u n til 2 0 0 6 “w a s ao n e tim e a c t w ith cont i nu ed consequences, and the l i m i t at i on s per i od i s notext ended. ” I d. F ol l ow i ng L o v e tt , w e de t e rm i ne d tha ta n i nm a t e c oul d notr e l y on the co n t i n u i n g v i o l at i o n d o ctri n e t o sav e h i s ex p o st fa c to cl ai m , w here he had b ee n not i f i e d i n 1995 of

ane w B oa r d pol i c y a l l ow i ng apa r ol e r e c ons i de r a t i on s e t - of f f or up t o e i ghty e a r s , butha d w a i t e d unt i l 2002 t o f i l e hi s l a w s ui t , e ve n though the B o a r d h a d d e n ie d h im p a r o le a s r e c e n tly a s 2 0 0 1 . See Br o wn 3 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 1 . W e a l s o r e

j e c t e d the a r gum e nttha te a c h s e tt i ng of apa r ol e he a r i ng c ons t i tut e d adi s t i nc ta nd s e pa r a t e i nj ury , hol di ng: E a c h t i m e B r ow n’ s pa r ol e r e c on si d erat i on he a r i ng i s s e t , i tdoe s not a m o u n t to ad is tin c t a n d s e p a r a te in ju ry . See , e . g. , Sm i th v . G r ubbs , 42 F ed .A p p x . 3 7 0 , 3 7 1 ( 1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 2 ) ( u n p u b li sh ed ). R ath er , B ro w n ’s in ju ry , to th e e x te n t i t e v e re x is te d , w a s w h e n th e G e o r g iaP a r o le B o a r d a p p lie d its n e w p o lic y , e lim in a tin g th e r e q u ir e m e n t o f p a r o le r e v ie w e v e ry th r e e y e a r s f o rB r o w n , r e tr o a c tiv e ly . I t is th e de c is io n in 1 9 9 5 th a t fo rm s a p o te n tia l b a s is fo rB r o w n 's c la im . I t w a s a ls o a t th is p o i n t th a t B r o w n c o u ld h a v e d is c o v e r e d

th e fa c tu a l p r e d ic a te o f h is c la im . T he succ es si ve deni al s of par ol e do n oti nv ol ve se para t e f ac tual pr e di c a t e s a nd the r e f

or e do notw a rrants e pa r a t e s t a tut e - of - l i m i t a t i onsWe note that, contra ry to Taylor’s argument on appeal, the Boa rd’s de cision to adopt 4 thec onte ste d p aro lepo licy c on stitute d th efac tual pre dic ateof thi s ex post fac to claim. See Brown , 335 F.3d at 1261-62. Even liberally

construinghis appellate brief, Ta ylor does not argue that the district cour t 5 erre d in re fu singto add

re ss expre ssly

his ex post fac to claim base d on the Georg ia Constitut ion, or that it abused its discretion in failing to exercisesupplemental jurisdiction over this state law c laim, no r doe s h ec iteany Ge org ia law o r s tatute s. Th ere fo re , h eha s w aive d a ny error with respe ct to this iss ue. See Sil vestri , 409 F.3d at 1338 n.18. We rejec t the Boa

rd’s a rgument that this claim is mootbeca use all of the litig ation 6 documents were removed f rom Taylor’s file be forehis parole he aringin 2006. As the district c ourt e xplaine d, remov al of

thelitig atio n documentsfrom T aylor ’sfi le“ do e s n ot n e c e ssa ri ly mean that the B oard did not or c ould not in the future retaliate ag ainst [hi m] based on the Boa rd’s knowle dg e of thecontents of thesedocuments.” 10 c a lc u la tio n s . I d. at12 61 -62 (em ph as i s a dd ed). T ay l or i ni t i al l y l ea rned i n 1 99 6 thatthe B oard had i m pl em ent ed a new pol i c y r e qui r i ng tha tl i f e - s e nt e nc e d of

f e nde r s , l i ke hi m s e l f

, w oul d be r e vi e w e d f

or parol e a tl ea ston ce every e i gh tye ar s, and n oton an annu al basi s. T ay l or, 4 h o w e v e r , d id n o t f

ile h is c o m p la in t u n til 2 0 0 5 , m o r e th a n tw o y e a r s la te r . T h u s , h is ex p o st fa c to c l a i m w a s unt i m e l y , a nd the c ont i nui ng vi ol a t i on doc tr i ne c a nnots a ve it. See L o v e tt , 3 2 7 F .3 d a t 1 1 8 3 ; Br o wn , 3 3 5 F .3 d a t 1 2 6 1 . 5 I V. R e ta lia tio n Cla im 6

“ T h e F i rstA m en d m en tfo rb i d s p ri so n o ffi ci al s fro m ret al i at i n g ag ai n st pri soners for e xerc i si ng the ri gh tof fr ee spee ch. ” Fa rro w v. W est , 320 F . 3d 1235, 12 48 (11th C i r. 20 03 ). “ A pri soner c an es t abl i sh re t al i at i on by dem on stra t i ng that11

the pri son o ff

i ci al ’ s a ct i on s w er e ‘ the re sul tof hi s havi ng fi l ed a gri evance concerni ng the cond i t i on s of hi s i m pri sonm ent . ’ ” I d. ( quot i ng W

i ldb er ger v . B r a c kn e ll , 869 F . 2d 1467, 1468 ( 11th C i r . 1989) ) . L i ke w i s e , the F i r s tA m e ndm e nt in s u la te s f

r o m r e ta lia tio n ap r is o n e rw h o e n g a g e s in ap r o te c te d a c tiv ity o n b e h a lf o f o th e rin m a te s . A da m s v . Jam es , 7 8 4 F .2 d 1 0 7 7 , 1 0 8 1 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 6 ) . If a def endantm ee t s the i ni t i al bu rden of dem on stra t i ng the abse nce of a ge nui ne i s s ue of

m a t e r i a l f

a c t , apl a i nt i f

f m us t“ e s t abl i s h[ ] ac a us a l r e l a t i ons hi p” betw ee n h i s c om pl ai nt s a nd the al l eged ret al i at ory a ct i on s i n o rdert o survi ve a s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t m o tio n . Far r ow , 3 2 0 F .3 d a t 1 2 4 9 .

“ ‘ [ C ] onc l us ory a l l e ga t i ons w i thouts pe c i f i c s uppor t i ng f

a c t s ha ve no prob at i ve val ue. ’ ” L ei

gh v. W arner B ros. , Inc. , 21 2 F . 3d 12 10 , 12 17 (11th C i r. 2000) ( c i t a t i on om i tt e d) . M or e ove r , a tl e a s ti n the e m pl oy m e ntc ont e xt , w e ha ve h e ld th a t, “in th e ab s e n c e o f a n y o th e re v id e n c e o f

c a u s a tio n , ath r e e a n d o n e - h a lf m o n th p r o x im ity b e tw e e n ap r o te c te d a c tiv ity a n d a n a d v e r s e e m p lo y m e n t a c tio n is i nsuffi ci entt o cre at e aj ury i ss ue on causat i on . ” D r ago v . J e nne , 453 F . 3d 1301, 1 3 0 8 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 6 ) . W i th res pectt o T ay l or’ s 200 4 p ar ol e hea ri ng , there i s no evi dence of causal re l at i on shi p b etw ee n h i s prot ec t ed ac t i vi t i es and the deni al of hi s par ol e a tthat tim e . C f. Far r ow , 32 0 F . 3d at12 49 . T he un di sput ed evi dence dem on stra t es that12

th e B o ard actu al l y g ran t ed T ayl o r p aro l e i n 1 9 8 8 , th ree years af terthe l i t i ga t i on do cum ent s w er e pre pare d. T ay l or has off er ed no expl anat i on on w hy the B oard w oul d gr a nthi m pa r ol e w i thi n thr e e y e a r s of the pr e pa r a t i on of

the l i t i ga t i on d o c u m e n ts , b u t th e n r e ta lia te a g a in s t h im f o rth e s e d o c u m e n ts in 2 0 0 4 , n e a r ly s ix te e n y e a r s la te r , b y d e n y in g h im p a r o le a t th a t h e a r in g . M or e ove r , gi ve n the t e m por a l r e m ot e ne s s of the pr e pa r a t i on of

the l i t i ga t i on doc um e nt s a nd the 2004 pa r ol e he a r i ng, w e c onc l ude tha tthe s e doc um e nt s do not h a v e a n y p r o b a tiv e v a lu e o f r e ta lia tio n . C

f. D r ago , 4 5 3 F .3 d a t 1 3 0 8 . A l s o, w hi l e the B oa r d a dhe r e d t o apol i c y of s e pa r a t i ng l i t i ga t i on f

i l e s f r om c l e m e nc y f

i l e s , T a y l orne ve re s t abl i s he d tha tw r i tt e n thr e a t s l e ve l e d a ga i ns tpr i s on of f i c i a l s c oul d notbe c ons i de r e d dur i ng apa r ol e he a r i ng. T hus , e ve n a s s um i ng ar gue ndo tha thi s 2004 pa r ol e de ni a l w a s ba s e d, i n pa r t , on the s e thr e a t s , T a y l or d id n o t d e m o n s tr a te th e B o a r d a c te d u n la w f u lly in c o n s id e r in g th e s e th r e a ts w h e n it d e n ie d h im p a r o le . F in a lly , w h ile T a y lo ra s s e r ts o n ap p e a l th a t h e a s s is te d o th e rin m a te s in fi l i ng gri evances and l aw sui t s a gai nstthe B oard, there i s no evi dence i n the re cord to s u p p o r t th is a lle g a tio n , o rto p r o v id e atim e - f r a m e a s to w h e n th e s e e v e n ts a l l e ge dl y oc c urr e d. A c c or di ngl y , the s e c onc l us ory a l l e ga t i ons do notpr ovi de a ny p r o b a tiv e e v id e n c e o f

r e ta lia tio n . C

f. L e i gh , 2 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 7 .13

W i th r e s pe c tt o hi s pa r ol e de ni a l i n 2006 a nd the e xt e ns i on of hi s ne xt t ent at i vel y s etparol e hea ri ng t o N ov em ber 201 4, T ay l or has f ai l ed t o sho w that these ac t i on s w er e bas ed, atl ea sti n p art , on re t al i at ory m ot i ves. T he B oard pres ent ed an aff

i davi tfr om M as t er s, w ho expl ai ned thatT ay l or’ s unschedul ed parol e hea ri ng i n 2 00 6 w as no tpredi ca t ed on re t al i at ory m ot i ves. Inst ea d, M as t er s in d ic a te d th a t s h e d is c o v e r e d d u r in g th e c o u r s e o f th e p r e s e n t la w s u it c e r ta in l i t i g at i o n fi l es w h i ch w ere i m p ro p erl y i n cl u d ed i n T ayl o r’ s cl em en cy fi l e, an d so she r em ov ed tho se fi l es and then res ub m i tt ed hi s f i l e i n 2 00 6, ea rl i erthan te n ta tiv e ly s c h e d u le d , to e n s u r e th a t h e r e c e iv e d ap r o p e rp a r o le r e v ie w . B y c ontr a s t , T a y l orof

f e r e d nothi ng t o c ontr a di c tM a s t e r s ’ s a f f i da vi t , e xc e pt an un supp ort ed ar gu m entthat , because thatthe 20 06 parol e hea ri ng w as cond uct ed appr oxi m a t e l y f

i ve m onths a f

t e rhe f i l e d the pr e s e ntl a w s ui t , r e t a l i a t ory m ot i ve m ustbe pres um ed. T hi s unsup po rt ed ac cusa t i on w as no tsuff i ci entt o cre at e a g e n u in e is s u e o f

m a te r ia l f

a c t, h o w e v e r . C

f. L e i gh , 2 1 2 F .3 d a t 1 2 1 7 . I n a d d itio n , T a y lo rd id n o t p r e s e n t a n y e v id e n c e to c o n tr a d ic t o rto u n d erm i n e th e B o ard ’ s p ro ffered reaso n fo r d en yi n g h i m p aro l e –th ath i s rel ease

“ w ou l d n otbe com pat i bl e w i th the w el fa re of soci ety . . . du e t o the se ri ou s nature of the offens e( s) for w hi ch [he] [w as ] conv i ct ed. ” T he un di sput ed evi dence s how e d tha tT a y l orw a s or i gi na l l y c onvi c t e d of tw o c ount s of

ki dnapi ng aboy , a nd14

upon hi s pa r ol e on thos e c onvi c t i ons , he s odom i z e d a nd m ol e s t e d a nothe rboy , a nd u p o n r e le a s e f

r o m th o s e c o n v ic tio n s , h e k id n ap e d ath ir d b o y . A d d itio n a lly , w h ile in p r is o n , T a y lo rw r o te th r e a te n in g le tte r s to p r is o n o f f ic ia ls . F in a lly , it is u n d is p u te d th a t T a y lo r ’s n e x t p a r o le h e a r in g c u rr e n tly s e t in 20 14 i s w i thi n ei gh tye ar s of hi s l at es tparol e hea ri ng i n 2 00 6, as re qu i re d b y B oard p o l i c y . Th u s , th e Bo a r d s c h e d u l e d Ta y l o r ’ s n e x tp a r o l e h e a r i n g w i th i n th e t i me f r a m e a r tic u la te din th e a m e n d e d B o a r d p o lic y . V. E q u a l Pr o te c tio n Cla im T h e E q u a l P r o te c tio n C la u s e p r o v id e s , in r e le v a n t p a r t, th a t “[ n ]o S ta te s h a ll m a ke ore nf

or c e a ny l a w w hi c h s ha l l . . . de ny t o a ny pe r s on w i thi n i t s j ur i s di c t i on the equal prot ec t i on of the l aw s. ” U . S. C ON ST . , am end. X IV , § 1 . W e have re cogn i ze d “ thatan i nm at e m aychal l enge the deni al of pardon or parol e on equ al prot ec t i on grou nd s. ” Ful l erv. G eorgi a S tat e B d. O f P ardo ns & P arol es , 851 F . 2d 1 3 0 7 , 1 3 1 0 ( 1 1 th C ir . 1 9 8 8 ) . T he E qua l P r ot e c t i on C l a us e i s i m pl i c a t e d i n “ c l a s s of one ” c l a i m s , the ty pe of cl ai m al l eged by T ay l or, “ ‘ w here the pl ai nt i ff al l eges thatshe has been i nt e nt i ona l l y tr e a t e d di f f e r e nt l y f r om othe r s s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d a nd tha tthe r e i s no ra t i on al basi s f

or the di ff

er ence i n tre atm ent . ’ ” C am pbe l l v . R ai nbow C i t

y, A la. , 4 3 4 F .3 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 1 4 ( 1 1 th C ir .) , ce rt. deni ed , 127 S . C t . 559 ( 2006) ( c i t a t i on15

o mi tt e d ) . “ A s h o w i n g th a ttw o p r o j e c t s w e r e s i mi l a r l y s i tu a t e d r e q u i r e s s o me spec i fi ci ty. ” I

d. W e have ci t ed w i th app roval the deci si on of R aci ne Cha rterO ne, I n c . v . R a c in e U

n ifie d Sc h o o l D is t. , 42 4 F . 3d 67 7 (7th C i r. 20 05 ), w hi ch concl ud ed th a t “[ t]o b e c o n s id e r e d ‘s im ila r ly s itu a te d ,’ c o m p a r a to r s m u s t b e p r im af a c ie i dent i ca l i n al l re l evantre spec t s. ” R ac i ne , 424 F . 3d a t680 ( quot e d i n C a m p b e ll , 4 3 4 F .3 d a t 1 3 1 4 ) .

“ [A ] n u n ex p l ai n ed st at i st i cal sh o w i n g o f d i sp arat e raci al treatm en tb y a s i ngl e e nt i ty ove rape r i od of t i m e [ m a y ] r a i s e the i nf e r e nc e of a n e qua l pr ot e c t i on vi ol at i on . ” Ful l er , 851 F . 2d a t1310. H ow e ve r , “ e xc e pt i ona l l y c l e a rpr oof ” of d is c r im in a tio n a s c o m p a r e d to s im ila r ly s itu a te d c o m p a r a to r s is r e q u ir e d . I d. I n Ful l er , a n i nm a t e a tt e m pt e d t o us e une xpl a i ne d s t a t i s t i c s t o pr ove tha the w a s di s c r i m i na t e d a ga i ns tw he n c om pa r e d t o s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d w hi t e i nm a t e s w ho w e r e p a r o le d . I

d. W e u ltim a te ly r e

je c te d th e in m a te ’s e v id e n c e a s irr e le v a n t, no t i ng that“ [t ] he deci si on t o g ra ntor deny parol e i s bas ed on m any f ac t ors s uch as c r i m i na l hi s t ory , na tur e of the of f e ns e , di s c i pl i na ry r e c or d, e m pl oy m e nta nd e d u c a tio n a l h is to ry , e tc . F u lle r[ th e in m a te ] d o e s n o t s h o w h im s e lf to b e s im ila r ly si tuat ed, consi deri ng such fa ct ors, w i th any i nm at es w ho w er e gra nt ed parol e. ” I d. A f t e rr e vi e w i ng the r e c or d, w e c onc l ude tha tthe di s tr i c tc our the r e di d not e rri n gr a nt i ng s um m a ry j udgm e ntf orthe B oa r d on T a y l or ’ s e qua l pr ot e c t i on16

c la im . T a y l ora tt e m pt s t o us e s t a t i s t i c a l c a l c ul a t i ons t o pr ove tha tthe r e w a s a“ huge di s pa r i ty ” be tw e e n the a m ountof t i m e tha the ha s be e n r e qui r e d t o s e rve i n pr i s on as com pare d t o the am ou ntof t i m e s erved b y other “ parol e vi ol at ors, ” a nd parol ed l i fe-sen t en ced i n m at es serv i n g sen t en ces fo r m u rd er, rap e, arm ed ro b b ery, ki dnapi ng, ora ggr a va t e d s odom y . H ow e ve r , the s e une xpl a i ne d s t a t i s t i c s do not p r o v id e “e x c e p tio n a lly c le a rp r o o f ” o f d is c r im in a tio n a s c o m p a r e d to s im ila r ly s itu a te d c o m p a r a to r s . See Ful l er , 851 F . 2d a t1310. T a y l or ’ s c om pa r a t or c a t e gor i e s – “ pa r ol e vi ol a t or s , ” a nd pa r ol e d l i f e - s e nt e nc e d i nm a t e s s e rvi ng se nt ence s f

or “ m urder, ” “ rape, ” “ arm ed robb ery, ” “ ki dn api ng , ” or “ aggravat ed sodo m y” – are extre m el y broad, and d o n otdem on stra t e thathi s s el f- i dent i fi ed com para t ors a re “

p r i ma fa c ie i dent i ca l i n al l re l evantre spec t s. ” C f. R aci ne Cha rter O ne, Inc. , 4 2 4 F . 3 d at6 8 0 (p ersu asi v e au th o ri ty) (ci t at i o n o m i tt ed ). T h ese ca t egori es do no ti nd i ca t e thatany of the com para t ors w er e r ec i di vi st s w ho had been conv i ct ed of the sa m e c ri m es of w hi ch T ay l or w as conv i ct ed (s om e of w hi ch w er e s exual l y bas ed and o thers w hi ch w er e not ), no r thatal l of thei r c ri m es i n v o l v ed m i n o r ch i l d ren . F u th er, T ayl o r d o es n o tex p l ai n w h eth er th ese c om pa r a t or s ha d be e n pa r ol e d anum be rof t i m e s pr e vi ous l y a nd ha d r e - of f e nde d, o rw h e th e rth e y th r e a te n e d p r is o n o f f ic ia ls w h ile in c a r c e r a te d .We alsoc on c ludethat th edis tric t c ourt did no t a bu seitsdis c retio n in

failingto exerc ise 7 its equitable power s to forcethe B oard to grant Ta ylor parole . 17 F ur the r , e ve n a s s um i ng ar gue ndo thatT ay l or coul d d em on stra t e thathe had be e n i nt e nt i ona l l y tr e a t e d di f f e r e nt l y f r om othe r s s i m i l a r l y s i tua t e d, he ha s not sh o w n th atth e B o ard act ed i rrat i o n al l y i n d o i n g so . T ayl o r’ s cri m i n al h i st o ry, r e c i di vi s m , a nd thr e a t s a ga i ns tpr i s on of f i c i a l s pr ovi de d ar a t i ona l ba s i s f orthe B oard t o fi nd thatparol e “ w ou l d n otbe com pat i bl e w i th the w el fa re of soci ety. ” A c c or di ngl y , w e c onc l ude tha tthe B oa r d w a s e nt i t l e d t o s um m a ry j udgm e nt o n T a y lo r ’s “c la s s o f

o n e ” e q u a l p r o te c tio n c la im . See C a m p b e ll , 43 4 F . 3d at 1 3 1 4 . F o rth e f

o r e g o in g r e a s o n s , w e a f f irm th e ju d g m e n t o f

d is m is s a l. 7 AF F I RME D.