Not what you're
looking for? Try an advanced search.
Buy This Entire Record For
Reynolds v. State
United States District Court, W.D. Virginia, Roanoke Division
February 19, 2019
CLARENCE DUKE REYNOLDS, Plaintiff,
STATE OF VIRGINIA, et al Defendants.
Jackson L. Kiser Senior United States District Judge
Duke Reynolds, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se, filed a
civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against
the follow Defendants: the State of Virginia; Virginia Parole
Board Chairwoman Adrianne Bennett; Virginia Parole Board
Member Rev. A. Lincoln James; Virginia Parole Board Member
Sherman Lea; Virginia Parole Board Co-Chair Jean W.
Cunningham; Virginia Parole Board Member Joni L. Ivey; Former
Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe; and the Senate and House
of Representatives of Virginia.
raises eight claims:
1. "The Parole Board is in violation of my 6th Amendment
[rights] when they did not treat parole and minimum sentence
as having the same protection as the maximum sentence under
the 6th Amendment." (Compl. 8 [ECF No.
2. "The Parole Board is in violation of my 6th Amendment
[rights] by having a bias[ed] Parole Board. By having a
representative of a crime victim and a person in the field of
law enforcement serving on the Parole Board is a
constitutional violation." Id.
3. "The Parole Board Manu[a]l is in violation of my 5th,
6th, and 14th Amendment [rights] when it gives 'element
of crime' as part of the guidelines for the Parole Board
decisions to grant or not to grant parole." Id.
4. "The State of Virginia created laws that govern the
parole system are in violation my 5th, 6th, and 14th
Amendment [rights] by having 'element of crime' in
the Parole Board Manu[a]l and by having a bias[ed] panel of
Parole Board members that are representative of crime
5. "The Parole Board is in violation of my 6th Amendment
[rights] when they used 'element of crime' for their
reasoning and determination not to grant parole."
6. "The Parole Board is in violation of my 6th Amendment
[rights] when they used unsubstantial or untruthful reasoning
to turn this Plaintiff down for parole." Id.
7. "Instead of using facts the Virginia Parole Board is
in violation of this Plaintiff['s] 6th Amendment rights
by using their opinion in making [the] decision not to grant
parole." Mot. to Amend 1, ECF No. 12.
8. "The Parole Board has violated this Plaintiff['s]
6th and 14th Amendment [rights] of the United States
Constitution when they met in secret or behind closed doors
to determine not [to] grant parole to this Plaintiff."
relief, Plaintiff requests: (1) an investigation of the laws
that govern the Virginia parole system; (2) a court order
directing the State of Virginia to rewrite the laws that
govern parole in Virginia; (3) a federal take-over of the
Virginia parole system until it follows the rule in
Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013); (4)
the release all inmates whose rights were violated by the
Virginia parole system; (5) restitution for all inmates
denied parole for the reason of "current offense";
(6) costs for this lawsuit; (7) a court order directing the
Governor of Virginia to appoint Parole Board Members that are
in compliance with the Sixth Amendment; and (8) immediate
release of the Plaintiff with restitution. (Compl. 19; Mot.
to Amend 2 [ECF No. 12].)
filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and Plaintiff responded,
making this matter ripe for disposition. After reviewing the
Buy This Entire Record For