University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Greiman v. Hodges CJ-IA-0002
Docket / Court 4:13-cv-510 ( S.D. Iowa )
State/Territory Iowa
Case Type(s) Criminal Justice (Other)
Case Summary
On November 22, 2013, a man that had been in custody for twenty-five years for a crime committed when he was sixteen filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The plaintiff sued the Iowa Board of Parole and the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC) under 42 U ... read more >
On November 22, 2013, a man that had been in custody for twenty-five years for a crime committed when he was sixteen filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. The plaintiff sued the Iowa Board of Parole and the Iowa Department of Corrections (IDOC) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiff, represented by the University of Iowa Law School Clinic, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the parole board’s actions and policies violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that he was being denied the opportunity for meaningful release while he was being detained under a mandatory adult life sentence for the crime he committed when he was sixteen. The plaintiff was not attempting to invalidate his life sentence, rather he was requesting a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on his youth at the time the crime was committed combined with his demonstrated rehabilitation and maturity during the time he had already spent in prison. In Graham v. Florida, the Supreme Court stated that “Constitution prohibits the imposition of a life without parole sentence on a juvenile offender who did not commit homicide” and to sentence otherwise was cruel and unusual punishment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment 130 S.Ct. 2011, 2034 (2010). Under Graham, the State is required to give juvenile offenders who did not commit homicide a meaningful opportunity to obtain release.

The plaintiff had previously filed a motion to correct his illegal sentence on October 15, 2010 in a separate lawsuit, filed in Iowa State Court. The motion was granted by Judge Carroll, who resentenced the plaintiff to life with eligibility for parole. The amended sentence established that the plaintiff was then eligible for parole as he had served past the statutory minimum of twenty-five years. The plaintiff applied for parole several times and was summarily denied based on the grounds of the seriousness of the offense he committed. No other grounds, such as the fact that he was an exemplary inmate for nearly thirty years and had only one minor infraction during that time, were considered during the parole review.

In addition to the policies that failed to take into account the plaintiff’s youth at the time and demonstrated maturity over the course of imprisonment, the parole board also required that the plaintiff take sex offender courses due to the nature of his crime. The plaintiff attempted to enroll in these courses, but was denied because of the Department of Corrections’ enrollment policy. Under IDOC policy, an inmate was only eligible to take the course if there were within two years of their date of discharge. Since inmates serving a life sentence lack a date of discharge, they are permanently unable to enroll in the classes required by the parole board. As a result, the plaintiff claimed that the IDOC had failed to implement any policies that would give the plaintiff a meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on rehabilitation and demonstrated maturity.

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss on February 7, 2014. On January 15, 2015, the court (Judge Robert Pratt) denied the defendant’s motion. The court found that the plaintiff did, in fact, state a plausible claim that the defendants violated his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying him a meaningful opportunity to obtain release, denying the motion in its entirety. 79 F.Supp.3d 933.

The parties then engaged in discovery for more than two years.

According to a status report filed on June 15, 2017, the plaintiff was granted work release status.

On October 3, 2017, the parties filed stipulation of dismissal of all claims without prejudice, which the court granted the next day. No reasons were provided. The case is now closed.

Stephanie Benjamini - 09/28/2016
Virginia Weeks - 01/27/2018


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Constitutional Clause
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Due Process
Defendant-type
Corrections
General
Juveniles
Parole grant/revocation
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Iowa
Plaintiff Description A man that had been in custody for twenty-five years for a crime committed when he was sixteen.
Class action status sought No
Class action status granted No
Filed Pro Se No
Prevailing Party Unknown
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Unknown
Source of Relief Unknown
Form of Settlement Voluntary Dismissal
Filing Year 2013
Case Closing Year 2017
Case Ongoing No
Docket(s)
4:13−cv−00510−RP−CFB (S.D. Iowa)
CJ-IA-0002-9001.pdf | Detail
Date: 10/04/2017
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Petition for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief [ECF# 1]
CJ-IA-0002-0001.pdf | Detail
Date: 12/23/2013
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order [Denying Motion to Dimiss] [ECF# 18] (79 F.Supp.3d 933) (S.D. Iowa)
CJ-IA-0002-0003.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Date: 01/15/2015
Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Bremer, Celeste F. (S.D. Iowa) [Magistrate]
CJ-IA-0002-9001
Pratt, Robert W. (S.D. Iowa)
CJ-IA-0002-0003 | CJ-IA-0002-9001
Plaintiff's Lawyers Allen, John Scott (Iowa)
CJ-IA-0002-9001
Whiston, John B. (Iowa)
CJ-IA-0002-0001 | CJ-IA-0002-9001
Defendant's Lawyers Hill, William A. (Iowa)
CJ-IA-0002-9001
Lundquist, John R. (Iowa)
CJ-IA-0002-9001

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -