Wilson v. Georgia State Board of Pardons & Paroles , 199 F. App'x 897 ( 2006 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT FILED
________________________ U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
October 12, 2006
No. 06-11811 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00016-CV-TWT-1
JOSEPH JOEY WILSON, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF
PARDONS AND PAROLES,
BOARD MEMBERS,
W. C. DAVIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia
_________________________
(October 12, 2006)
Before BLACK, BARKETT and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Joey Wilson, Jr., a Georgia prisoner proceeding pro se, appeals the
district court’s ruling dismissing his lawsuit, which alleged violations of the Due
Process and Ex Post Facto Clauses related to post-offense changes in Georgia’s
parole procedures, for failure to state a claim upon which relief might be granted.
On appeal, Wilson argues that the Board violated and continues to violate his due
process and ex post facto rights by holding parole hearings for him only every
eight years, even though, at the time his crimes of conviction were committed, the
law required that such hearings be held every year once the prisoner had served
seven years’ incarceration. Wilson relies heavily on Akins v. Snow, 922 F.2d 1558(11th Cir. 1991).
Subsequently, however, the U.S. Supreme Court issued decisions holding
that new parole procedures that decrease the frequency of parole reconsideration
hearings did not necessarily violate prisoners’ ex post facto rights. See California
Dep’t of Corr. v. Morales, 514 U.S. 499, 501-02, 115 S. Ct. 1597, 1599 (1995); see
also Garner v. Jones, 529 U.S. 244, 256-57, 120 S. Ct. 1362, 1370-71 (2000)
(addressing the Georgia rule at issue in the instant case). We have acknowledged
that the Supreme Court has overruled Akins. Swan v. Ray, 293 F.3d 1252, 1253
(11th Cir. 2002).
2
Wilson has argued only that the rule change facially constitutes an ex post
facto violation, an argument that is contrary to the applicable law. Accordingly,
the district court did not err in dismissing his lawsuit.
AFFIRMED.
3