United States District Court, D. Oregon
KENNETH G. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
OREGON STATE BOARD OF PAROLE AND POST-PRISON SUPERVISION, is the administrative agency in charge of parole release decisions for Oregon prison inmates; MICHAEL WU, is the Chairperson for the Oregon State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision; SID THOMPSON, is a member of the Oregon State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision; CHRISTINE HERMAN, is a member of the Oregon State Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
Aiken United States District Judge
an inmate at Oregon State Penitentiary, filed suit alleging
violations of the Americans with Disability Act (ADA), the
Rehabilitation Act (RA), state discrimination laws, and his
federal and state constitutional rights to equal protection.
Defendants now move for dismissal, or alternatively, for
summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below,
and 1986, petitioner was sentenced to consecutive prison
terms after convictions on robbery and escape charges. Hsu
Decl. Ex. 3 at 1 (ECF No. 10). In 1993, plaintiff was
released on parole. Id.
23, 2008, plaintiff was re-arrested and subsequently returned
to the custody of the Department of Corrections (ODOC) after
the Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision (the
Board) found plaintiff had violated the conditions of his
February 28, 2009, the Board held a future disposition
hearing and proposed a parole release date of July 22, 2016.
January 6, 2016, the Board held a parole hearing to consider
plaintiffs projected release date. Hsu Decl. Ex. 1. The Board
reviewed evidence regarding plaintiffs violations of ODOC
rules while in custody and his mental status, including an
evaluation from Dr. Gary McGuffin. Dr. McGuffin diagnosed
plaintiff as suffering from "Other specified personality
disorder (mixed personality disorder with antisocial and
paranoid personality features)," Id., Ex. 1 at
2, The Board emphasized that Dr. McGuffin also reported:
Consequently, Mr. Williams is still seen as being highly
prone to exhibit poor judgment and easily act out at his
inappropriate urges resulting in violating rules and showing
disrespect and disobedience towards authority figures.
Ongoing issues with lacking self-control when becoming
emotionally charged indicate a high probability that Mr.
Williams could not be successfully supervised if returned to
the community and is seen as a moderate risk to reoffend. If
Mr. Williams began using alcohol and/or illicit drugs, his
risk to reoffend would be seen as severe.
Id. Based in part on Dr. McGuffin's report, the
Board concluded that plaintiff has a "present severe
emotional disturbance that constitutes a danger to the safety
of the community" and deferred plaintiffs projected
release date to July 22, 2020. Id. In addition to
plaintiffs "mental or emotional disturbance," the
Board noted plaintiffs history of misconduct while in ODOC
custody and found that each factor would independently
support the Board's decision. Id.
12, 2016, plaintiff sought administrative review of the
Board's order. Hsu Deci. Ex. 2. The Board denied relief
and informed plaintiff that he could appeal to the Oregon
Court of Appeals for judicial review. Id. Ex. 4.
Plaintiff did not appeal.
November 27, 2017, plaintiff filed the instant action.
alleges that the Board and its members violated his rights
against disability discrimination under the Title II of the
ADA, the RA, and Oregon statutory law by extending his
projected parole date due to his severe emotional
disturbance. See McCline v. Bd. of Parole &
Post-Prison Supervision, 205 Or.App. 144, 147-48, 133
P.3d 349 (2006) (discussing this Court's decision in
Daniels v. Cogswell, No. 3:79-cv-651 (D. Or. Nov.
28, 1979) prohibiting the Board from denying or postponing
parole solely on the basis of a severe emotional
disturbance). Plaintiff also alleges that defendants violated
his federal and state constitutional rights to equal
protection, because defendants deferred his parole date
because of his disability while releasing similarly-situated
inmates without disabilities.
move for dismissal of plaintiffs claims, or alternatively,
for summary judgment. To prevail on their motion, defendants
must show that 1) plaintiffs allegations are not
"plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff
to relief," Moss v. United States Secret Serv.,572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009); or 2) there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and defendants are entitled
to judgment as a matter of law, Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a);
Cehtex Corp. v. Catrett,477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).
The court must construe the pleadings and evidence and all
reasonable inferences in the light most ...