Case: Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative v. Hogan
1:16-cv-01021 | U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland
Filed Date: April 6, 2016
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
On April 6, 2016, the Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative, a grassroots membership organization dedicated to advocating for individuals serving long-term prison sentences, and three juveniles sentenced to life in prison, filed this class-action lawsuit in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland against Governor Larry Hogan and three other state officials. The plaintiffs challenged Maryland's parole process for people sentenced to life with parole for crimes committed as juveniles. They principally argued that the parole system operated as ad hoc executive clemency, with parole granted only in rare instances and without substantive or enforceable standards. This process, plaintiffs asserted, violated the Eighth Amendment's requirement of a meaningful and realistic opportunity for release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation, and also violated the state's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment (Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights). Plaintiffs also argued that state sentencing law requiring mandatory life for people convicted of murder, irrespective of youth, violated the Eighth Amendment, which required a finding of "irreparable corruption" before imposing a life sentence denying meaningful opportunity for release. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorneys' fees and costs. The case was assigned to Judge Ellen Lipton Hollander.
On May 26, 2016, the families of the victims of the three plaintiffs, as well as the Maryland Crime Victim Resource Center, filed a motion to intervene in the suit as defendants based on Article 47 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights as well as a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The intervenors argued that they should be allowed to intervene in order to assert their rights to be notified of and participate in any proceedings related to defendants who had injured them. They also argued that amici status was insufficient. On June 13, 2016, the defendants filed a motion taking no position on the victims' requests but noting that it did not need their assistance to put up a sufficient defense.
On July 8, 2016, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim or alternatively, a motion for summary judgment. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs’ § 1983 claim was barred by the U.S. Supreme Court's rule in Heck v. Humphrey because a ruling in their favor would necessarily conclude that their life sentences were invalid. Further, the defendants argued that the plaintiffs failed to make a plausible claim upon which relief could be granted under the Eighth Amendment or Fourteenth Amendments and that their complaint in fact showed that they were receiving meaningful opportunities for release. Third, in the alternative, the defendants argued that summary judgment was proper because the plaintiffs had the opportunity to participate in the parole process and in fact did receive parole. Finally, they argued that the court did not have subject-matter jurisdiction because the prisoners did not exhaust their rights under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
On August 30, 2016, Judge Hollander denied the victim families' motion to intervene, concluding the families had no right under Maryland law to intervene in the suit. The families had no protectable interest to gain or lose as a result of the proceedings and no rights at stake. Additionally, the families did not show that the State could not protect their interests nor that their objectives were substantially different from the State's. Judge Hollander also refused to grant permissive intervention, concluding that it would cause significant burdens to the litigation. Instead, she granted the families amicus status. 316 F.R.D. 106.
On December 7, 2016, Judge Hollander sent a memorandum to the parties, asking them to submit briefs on the impact of a recently decided 4th Circuit case on the defendants' motion to dismiss. LeBlanc v. Mathena, 2016 WL 6652438 (4th Cir. 2016) held that Virginia's geriatric release program provided "no meaningful opportunity to obtain release based on demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation" because it had few governing standards. Under Virginia's system, the State Parole Board could deny geriatric release for any reason "without considering a juvenile's maturity and rehabilitation." The parties subsequently provided updated memoranda.
On December 20, 2016, the three named plaintiffs moved for a writ of habeas corpus, requesting that they be present at oral argument on January 4, 2017, given that they faced life imprisonment if the court were to dismiss the case against them. The defendants did not oppose the motion and Judge Hollander granted the writs.
On February 3, 2017, Judge Hollander issued her decision, denying plaintiffs' motion to strike and granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion to dismiss. The plaintiffs had moved to strike the amici's filings for improperly asserting defenses not raised by the defendants. Judge Hollander denied the motion to strike but refused to consider any of the novel arguments raised by the amici. On the motion for summary judgment, Judge Hollander held that summary judgment was inappropriate before discovery and that the plaintiffs were entitled to discovery on their claims prior to such point. 2017 WL 467731.
Under the defendant’s motion to dismiss, Judge Hollander held that plaintiffs' challenge to Maryland's parole system was cognizable under § 1983 because it did not challenge their sentences or convictions themselves. However, she also concluded that the plaintiffs' did not make a plausible claim that Maryland's parole system violated Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. On the statute of limitations defense and administrative exhaustion claims, Judge Hollander held that the plaintiffs' complaint was not time-barred nor exhausted.
Finally, on the motion to dismiss, Judge Hollander concluded that the Supreme Court's decisions in Miller, Graham, and Montgomery applied to juvenile prisoners sentenced to life without parole. Since the governor's clemency authority lacked any clear standards and since parole was almost never granted to juvenile lifers, the plaintiffs stated a plausible claim that they had no meaningful opportunity for release, in violation of the Eighth Amendment and Article 25 of the Maryland Declaration of Rights. As such, the plaintiffs "sufficiently alleged that Maryland’s parole system operates as a system of executive clemency, in which opportunities for release are 'remote,' rather than a true parole scheme in which opportunities for release are 'meaningful' and 'realistic,' as required in Graham."
Judge Hollander then directed the defendants to answer the complaint, which they did on February 28, 2017.
On March 30, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge A. David Copperthite for settlement. On August 1, the case was referred to Magistrate Judge. J. Mark Coulson for discovery and related scheduling. From March 30 to October 6, the parties engaged in discovery and litigation surrounding the terms of discovery. On September 27, 2017, Judge Coulson issued an order granting in part and denying in part the plaintiffs' motion to compel. Plaintiffs' were seeking "risk assessment" documents of inmates in efforts to better understand the parole process. Defendants opposed this due to confidentiality concerns for inmates not related to this matter. Judge Coulson allowed for six "risk assessment" reports be given to the plaintiffs in order to protect confidentiality while also allowing the plaintiffs some degree of information to better understand the process. 2017 WL 4280779.
The parties were engaged in settlement negotiations until negotiations fell apart in June of 2018. On June 28, 2018, plaintiffs moved for a partial judgment on the pleadings and a permanent injunction. The motion alleged that the role of the Governor in Maryland's parole system was unconstitutional in that sole authority to parole was given to the Governor. Furthermore, the parole system failed to make a distinction for juveniles, which the Supreme Court had held are entitled to an opportunity to demonstrate maturity and rehabilitation. The permanent injunction would stipulate to parole boards that they consider juvenile lifers for parole in their normal course, without the approval or review of the Governor.
On October 17, 2018, Judge Coulson issued a memorandum opinion concerning a discovery dispute. The defendants had sought a protective order regarding confidential information, namely inmate records, the tests administered in the parole process, and personnel records of psychologists who conduct those tests. Judge Coulson approved the protective order for the inmates records and denied it for the tests and personnel records as long as the personnel records had redacted identifying information. 2018 WL 5026369. Judge Coulson issued another order on October 25, 2018, limiting plaintiffs' access to only records concerning the actions of the Governor when Governor Hogan was in office. 2018 WL 5026369.
Judge Coulson again issued a memorandum order concerning a discovery dispute on July 15, 2019. Plaintiffs had moved for reconsideration of the limit on risk assessment records of juveniles. Judge Coulson denied the motion, asserting that the plaintiffs were simply trying to relitigate a prior ruling. 2019 WL 3081196.
On February 3, 2020, the parties jointly moved to administratively stay the case, which the court granted that same day. The case remained stayed while the parties engaged in settlement negotiations. Eventually, on February 15, 2021, the parties reported to the court that they had reached an agreement.
The settlement agreement provided for revisions to the Maryland Parole Commission's juvenile lifer parole policies, practices, and procedures. Among the agreement's requirements:
- No more than 18 months from parole hearing to final parole decision, including any gubernatorial consideration;
- Written policies, to be promulgated by the Parole Commission, to require, among other things: notification in writing of the right to seek judicial review of a parole decision; written decisions providing specific findings to support denial of parole and guidance for improvement; recording of parole hearings; and diminished salience of the nature or circumstances of the offense.
- Security reclassifications and guidance to case managers about security classifications for juvenile lifers;
- The Parole Commission would propose for adoption a regulation requiring appropriate consideration of youth at the time of the offense and would develop training materials about the application of the youth factor and consideration of risk assessments;
- Changes to governing regulations requiring the Commission to consider whether the parole-eligible juvenile lifer had demonstrated maturity and rehabilitation since commission of the offense and to consider mitigating factors of youth.
The parties could seek enforcement of the settlement agreement by the court, with the enforcement provision set to expire four years from the effective date of the agreement.
On April 14, 2021, the court granted the parties' consent motion to dismiss the case, directing the clerk to close the case, but acknowledging that the case could be reopened for purposes of seeking enforcement of the parties' private settlement agreement. Thereafter, the court briefly reopened the case to consider and, on May 26, 2021, deny a motion seeking reconsideration of the court's August 2016 decision to deny intervenor status. As of May 26, 2021, the case has been closed.
Summary Authors
Craig Streit (3/27/2017)
Chelsea Rinnig (1/30/2018)
Cedar Hobbs (1/31/2020)
Related Cases
LeBlanc v. Mathena, Eastern District of Virginia (2012)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5275934/parties/maryland-restorative-justice-initiative-v-hogan/
Borja, Mary E (District of Columbia)
Arnquist, Lisa O Mara (Maryland)
Baron, Susan Howe (Maryland)
Bernhardt, Julia Doyle (Maryland)
Butler, Russell Paul (Maryland)
Borja, Mary E (District of Columbia)
Criss, Ashley−Anne Lopez (District of Columbia)
Fleishman, Barry J. (District of Columbia)
Lemley, Charles C. (District of Columbia)
Merritt, Alexander Haywood (District of Columbia)
Petel, George Emil (District of Columbia)
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5275934/maryland-restorative-justice-initiative-v-hogan/
Last updated Aug. 22, 2026, 5:28 a.m.
Docket for: Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative v. Hogan
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: April 6, 2016
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative, a non-profit organization dedicated to helping prisoners, and three prisoners sentenced to life in prison based on homicides committed as juveniles.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
David Blumberg
Dayena M. Corcoran
Governor Larry Hogan
Stephen Moyer
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
District of Maryland 1:16-cv-01021
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Source of Relief:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:
Case Summary of Maryland Restorative Justice Initiative v. Hogan, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/15371/ (last updated 1/31/2020).