Inmates, represented both pro se and by private attorneys, in the District of Columbia filed a class action lawsuit against the District of Columbia officials under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 22, 1991, claiming that the District was denying them due process and otherwise violating their liberty interest in granting, denying, and revoking parole. Plaintiffs argued that their due process rights were violated because the D.C. Board of Parole refused to hold parole hearings far enough in advance of their respective parole eligibility dates so they may be released on that date if parole is granted. The plaintiffs also sought materials to assist them in understanding the Board's parole decisions in their cases, and they sought prompt "preliminary hearings" after parole warrants were executed and to be provided parole revocation hearings no more than 90 days thereafter.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judge William B. Bryant), in an unpublished opinion, granted the inmates' requests. Ellis v. District of Columbia, No. 91-3041, 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21092 (D. D.C. Mar. 30, 1995).

The D.C. Court of Appeals on May 28, 1996, reversed, holding that the Board regulations do not give prisoners a liberty interest in parole, and accordingly the prison need not hold parole hearings far enough in advance of prisoners' parole eligibility dates so that prisoners may be released on that date if eligible. Ellis v. District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (Judge Arthur R. Randolph). The court also overruled the District Court's modification of the Board's revocation hearings procedures. The case was closed on July 17, 1996.

David Terry - 02/19/2006


compress summary