A federal judge has dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by a 74-year-old Louisiana inmate who was granted parole in March but subsequently claimed to be the victim of retaliation by the state parole board over the press coverage his case generated.
Judge John de Gravelles of the Middle District of Louisiana rejected the claim filed by Bobby Sneed, who has spent 47 years at Louisiana State Penitentiary. The July 20 opinion found that case law required that Sneed pursue state remedies aimed at preventing unlawful detainee detention.
But de Gravelles also wrote that he found the actions of the Louisiana Committee on Parole very troubling and suggested that the complaint could be amended and refiled so as to apply more generally to parole procedures.
“(The complaint) portrays defendants as petty tyrants who are accountable to no one and who exercise their power without regard to the wellbeing of those within their jurisdiction,” de Gravelles wrote. “If true, defendants’ flagrant disregard of procedural norms in the two hearings at issue is, at best, irregular, and, at worst, reprehensible.”
Sneed had won parole on a unanimous parole board vote on March 15 and was set for release on March 26. But he suffered a medical emergency just prior to the release date and more procedural delays, the July 20 opinion states. Ultimately, the parole board rescinded Sneed’s parole as publicity about the case increased.
“We’re still studying his ruling and trying to decide on next steps, whether we return to federal court or go to state court at this point,” Sneed’s attorney, Thomas Frampton, told the Louisiana Record. “Our chief hope has always been and continues to be that the parole board will – on its own volition – do the right thing, both for Bobby Sneed and Louisiana taxpayers.”
It’s bewildering that someone who doesn’t pose a safety risk should continue to be incarcerated at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars when cheaper options are available, Frampton said.
“There is a ‘reasonable likelihood’ that the Committee on Parole’s unusual (indeed unprecedented) treatment of Mr. Sneed’s case is the product of actual vindictiveness in response to his exercise of his (procedural and First Amendment) rights,” Sneed’s original complaint says.