Court Opinion

ID: 9482250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 08:44:37.065699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:48:51.700818
License: Public Domain

HEANEY, Senior Circuit Judge,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent from both the majority’s jurisdictional and constitutional decisions.

Jurisdiction

A.
This panel cannot properly rely on Jones v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 903 F.2d 1178 (8th Cir.1990), to affirm the district court’s decision on jurisdictional grounds. In Jones, a three-judge panel abandoned the abuse-of-discretion standard traditionally deployed by this court to review the decisions of the Parole Commission and instead adopted the position on which the majority relies to avoid reaching the merits of Wright’s claim. The Jones panel was obligated to follow our prior cases, and this panel is equally bound. Indeed, where a panel overrules a prior decision by a previous panel, a subsequent panel is obligated to follow the earlier precedent. See e.g., Johnson v. Moral, 843 F.2d 846, 847 (5th Cir.1988). Without this rule, the axiom that one panel of this court cannot overrule a prior panel is effectively neutered. For this reason, our traditional standard can only be overturned by the court en banc. If this panel disagrees with the abuse-of-discretion standard, this case should be given en banc consideration.
Our case law repeatedly respects the need to restrain from announcing new principles contrary to existing law until the entire court can convene en banc. See e.g., Dawidoff v. Minneapolis Bldg. & Constr. Trade Council, 550 F.2d 407, 411 n. 3 (8th Cir.1977); Laughlin v. IRS, 912 F.2d 197, 201 n. 10 (8th Cir.1990) (Magill, J., dissenting). These cases reflect the rule of this circuit that an en banc proceeding is reserved for two purposes only, one of which is to review a panel opinion which conflicts with the precedent of this court. See 8th Cir.R. 35A(a) (1990). The logic behind this policy is simple: “Regular adherence to published rules of procedure best promotes the principles of fairness, stability, and uniformity that those rules are designed to advance.” Missouri v. Jenkins, 495 U.S. 33,-, 110 S.Ct. 1651, 1662, 109 L.Ed.2d 31, 53 (1990). Indeed, the case on which the Jones panel principally relied to substantiate its conversion was a Ninth Circuit en banc decision, which expressly recognized the need to consider such an event en banc. See Wallace v. Christensen, 802 F.2d 1539, 1542 (9th Cir.1986) (“Previous cases in this circuit have referred to an ‘abuse of discretion’ standard as the.basis for review of Commission decisions, and have implicitly assumed the existence of jurisdiction to conduct that analysis. We took this case en banc to reconsider this assumption and evaluate our standard of review.” (citations omitted)).
The panel in Jones justified its action by citing this court’s dictum that where “[t]he jurisdictional issue simply has never been discussed by this court [, and] [t]hus, none of our prior decisions can be ‘read as having decided that issue, ... it remains open for consideration in the present case.’ ” Jones v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 903 F.2d at 1182 (citing United States v. Evidente, 894 F.2d 1000, 1004 n. 5 (8th *437Cir.1990)). While the abuse-of-discretion cases do not expressly discuss the jurisdiction issue that the majority employs to dispose of Wright’s claim, even the Jones panel admitted that prior to its decision, this court “has implicitly assumed the existence of jurisdiction to conduct [abuse of discretion] analysis.” Id. at 1182. I therefore do not find convincing the Jones panel’s pronouncement that this court has never before considered the jurisdiction issue.
Moreover, the case, United States v. Evidente, 894 F.2d 1000, 1004 n. 5 (8th Cir.1990), the Jones panel cited to support its evasion of the en banc procedure involved a situation distinct from that in Jones. In Evidente, this court decided a jurisdiction question that was previously never considered, not even inferentially.1 The situation in Jones was entirely different.2 In order to apply the abuse-of-discretion standard in cases prior to Jones, this court must have considered whether appellate jurisdiction existed to review the discretionary action of the Parole Commission. While this consideration may not have been expressed, it is nonsensical to believe that “none of our prior [parole review] decisions can be ‘read as having decided [the jurisdictional] issue’.... ” Jones v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 903 F.2d at 1182 (citing United States v. Evidente, 894 F.2d 1000, 1004 n. 5 (8th Cir.1990)).
In sum, Jones both evaded the en banc process that is required to adopt law contrary to Eighth Circuit precedent and fallaciously relied on a fundamentally distinct case to justify this evasion. Until this court en banc decides otherwise, we must continue to review Parole Commission decisions for an abuse of discretion.
B.
Applying the abuse-of-discretion standard to the facts in this case reveals that such an abuse occurred here. As the majority explains, at Wright’s local parole revocation hearing, the examiner found insufficient evidence to support the charge that Wright assaulted the security officer, yet based on the same evidence, the regional Parole Commission found, and the Commission’s national appeals board confirmed, that Wright had assaulted the security officer. The evidence simply does not support this finding. Only one witness testified that he actually saw the incident in which the security guard was injured. According to this witness, the security officer lunged to tackle the fleeing Wright, but when the officer impacted Wright, the officer groaned and fell to the ground; the running Wright never turned around nor did he attempt to strike the lunging officer. Because a truck shielded their view, neither of the other witnesses actually saw this event; similarly, the injured security officer was unable to testify that he was attacked by Wright.
*438Except for his injury, there was no evidence that the security officer was assaulted. Without such evidence, the Parole Commission should not be able to find that Wright assaulted the officer. The finding of assault resulted in a re-parole guideline range of 100 to 148 months, and Wright was ordered to serve the remaining eight years of his fifteen-year sentence. Absent an assault finding, Wright would have been subject to twelve to sixteen months imprisonment. Thus, the Parole Commission’s abuse of discretion wrought great damage on Wright’s liberty.

Due Process

I also believe that Wright’s due process rights were violated, and therefore dissent from the majority’s decision to the contrary. One need look no further than the majority's opinion itself to realize the questionable nature of its ruling that no due process violation occurred. At the end of its discussion of this issue, the majority concludes “it is likely that no due process violation occurred....” In the realm of constitutional rights, such a tentative and hedged conclusion is unacceptable.
The timing of events casts doubt on the majority’s holding that no due process violation occurred because the parole officer’s letter did not prejudice Wright’s parole revocation. Wright’s initial revocation hearing took place on January 19, 1988, after which the panel concluded that the evidence was insufficient to find that Wright assaulted the security officer. Two days later, the parole officer wrote to the Commissioner for the regional Parole Commission to emphasize his belief that Wright assaulted the security officer. On February 1, 1988, the regional Parole Commission overturned the initial ruling and decided that Wright had assaulted the security officer. That the January 21st letter influenced this decision seems highly likely. If this was the case, then failing to notify Wright of the letter and denying him the opportunities to respond and to confront its author violated Wright’s due process rights. See Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 489, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 2604, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972) (due process rights assured at parole revocation hearing, including the right to disclosure of evidence against parolee and the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses).

Conclusion

I respectfully dissent from both the majority’s jurisdictional and constitutional holdings. This case should be referred to the court en banc to decide whether we should depart from our traditional abuse-of-discretion standard when we review parole decisions.

. In Evidente, this court held that it “is not empowered under 18 U.S.C. § 3742, or any other statute, to review a sentencing court’s exercise of its discretion to refrain from departing either upward or downward from the range established by the applicable guideline.” United States v. Evidente, 894 F.2d at 1004. In making this holding, the court noted that an earlier court decision did not preclude its ruling in Evidente. The noted earlier court decision, United States v. Justice, 877 F.2d 664 (8th Cir.1989), ruled that a district court’s refusal to depart downward for substantial cooperation and an inaccurate criminal history should be reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. Because Evidente did not involve either of these issues, and instead involved an appeal in which the defendant claimed that the district court erred in failing to depart downward on the basis of the facts alone, this court reasoned, “Justice does not discuss in any manner the issue of whether appellate jurisdiction exists to review the discretionary refusal to exercise departure authority,” and therefore concluded that the jurisdiction issue “remains open for consideration in the present case." United States v. Evidente, 894 F.2d at 1004 n. 5. Thus, the jurisdiction question considered in Evidente was not addressed in Justice.

. The Jones panel justified its abandonment of the abuse-of-discretion standard in favor of non-substantive review by identifying the situation before it as the same as the one before the court in Evidente. As stated in the text, the situation in Jones was different from that in Evidente. The Evidente panel was able to reach its standard of review decision because Justice dealt with the standard of review over a guidelines issue distinct from that presented in Evidente. No such distinction exists between Jones and the cases preceding it: both Jones and its predecessors involved the standard for reviewing parole decisions.