Jones v. Allison, No. 20-15795 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
In 2016, California voters passed Proposition 57, which amended the California Constitution by granting eligibility for early parole consideration to state prison inmates convicted of nonviolent felonies who had completed the full term for their primary offense. Section 32 authorized the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) to adopt implementing regulations. CDCR adopted regulations, which excluded from early parole consideration nonviolent felony offenders sentenced to indeterminate sentences under California’s Three Strikes Law. In 2018, the California Court of Appeal found that the Regulations’ exclusion of these offenders was inconsistent with Section 32. CDCR amended the Regulations to include, for early parole consideration, state prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for nonviolent third-strike offenses and set a deadline of December 31, 2021, by which to schedule parole consideration hearings for previously-excluded offenders.
The previously-excluded offenders filed a putative class action under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the suit, The CDCR defendants acted within the legislative sphere when they participated in the adoption of the Regulations. That the Regulations were later found to violate the California Constitution did not diminish their authority to adopt the Regulations in the first place. They were performing a legislative function when they adopted the Regulations and are entitled to legislative immunity.
Court Description: Civil Rights. The panel affirmed the district court’s dismissal of an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment procedural and substantive due process rights for the time they spent incarcerated and ineligible for early parole considerations because of regulations adopted by executive officials of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations. In November 2016, California voters passed Proposition 57, which amended the California Constitution by adding Article I, Section 32 (“Section 32”). Section 32 granted eligibility for early parole consideration to state prison inmates convicted of nonviolent felonies who had completed ** Richard K. Eaton, Judge of the United States Court of International Trade, sitting by designation. JONES V. ALLISON 3 the full term for their primary offense. Section 32 authorized the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations (“CDCR”) to adopt implementing regulations. In 2017 and 2018, the CDCR adopted regulations (“Regulations”) which excluded from early parole consideration nonviolent felony offenders sentenced to indeterminate sentences under California’s Three Strikes Law. The California Court of Appeal subsequently found the Regulations to be inconsistent with Section 32. Thereafter, in 2019, the CDCR amended the Regulations to include, for early parole consideration, state prisoners serving indeterminate sentences for nonviolent third-strike offenses. Plaintiffs are felony offenders previously sentenced under California’s Three Strikes Law whose third strike was a nonviolent felony, and who became eligible for early parole under the 2019 Amendments. Plaintiffs brought suit for due process violations for the time they spent incarcerated and ineligible for early parole consideration because of the Regulations. The panel first rejected plaintiffs’ argument that defendants lacked authority to adopt the Regulations because the Regulations were ultimately determined to be unlawful. The panel held that defendants acted within the legislative sphere when they participated in the adoption of the Regulations. That the Regulations were later found to violate the California Constitution did not diminish defendants’ authority to adopt the Regulations in the first place. The panel then held that defendant officials of the CDCR were performing a legislative function when they adopted the Regulations as directed by Section 32. Defendants were therefore entitled to legislative immunity from plaintiffs’ § 1983 claims for damages. 4 JONES V. ALLISON
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.