Fifth Circuit Leaves Louisiana Prisoner Waiting for Reinstated Parole
by Douglas Ankney
On June 6, 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit released a mandate it earlier withheld, which in turn ordered the release of Louisiana prisoner Samuel K. Galbraith—nearly eight years after he was originally granted parole. However, the Court had subsequently withdrawn the opinion that he should be released, leaving Galbraith, 55, still waiting in Elayn Hunt Correctional Center for a new opinion to be substituted.
In February 2000, Galbraith was convicted of the brutal murder of Karen Hill. Then enlisted in the U.S. Army and stationed at Fort Polk—now Fort Johnson—in Vernon Parish, Galbraith kidnapped Hill, tied her to a tree and shot her in the head. He cut a deal and pleaded guilty to manslaughter and attempted aggravated rape in exchange for a 71-year prison term.
Galbraith’s first parole eligibility date was April 23, 2017, and the state Parole Board set an October 2016 parole hearing that was postponed to November 3, 2016, after a notification letter to one of Hill’s relatives was mailed to Albany, New York, rather than her home in Albany, Illinois. Despite objections by Hill’s family, the Board voted unanimously to grant parole and scheduled release for April 23, 2017.
Vernon Parish District Attorney Asa Skinner requested reconsideration, which the Board denied. But Hill’s mother, Jessie McWilliams, heard about the earlier mailing error and went public with her complaint that parole was improperly granted. Skinner also went to the media with his suspicions that Galbraith was responsible for two cold-case murders in Vernon Parish. In an email exchange, Board members and staffers of then-Gov. John Bel Edwards (D) fretted about the negative impact of Galbraith’s parole on criminal justice reform legislation supported by Edwards.
On April 21, 2017—the same date as the email exchange—Board member Jim Wise filled in a “Parole Board Action Sheet,” checking the box marked “Other” and rescinding Galbraith’s parole because “[t]here may have been technical irregularity to victim notice.” Galbraith was not released. A letter dated May 1, 2017, advised him that he would be “scheduled for another hearing on 08/03/2017.” But there was no evidence that the Board took any official action to rescind parole other than Wise’s signature on the form.
Galbraith filed a civil rights complaint in federal court for the Middle District of Louisiana, which granted summary judgment to Defendant officials with the state Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC), agreeing that Galbraith’s only remedy was in habeas corpus. He filed for a writ under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, which the Court granted in March 2022. The State appealed, and Galbraith’s release order was stayed pending resolution of the appeal.
In its decision on October 23, 2023, the Fifth Circuit first determined that § 2241 was the appropriate vehicle for Galbraith to pursue relief, noting that he was not seeking a new parole hearing—unlike two Ohio prisoners who therefore had to file under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, according to Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005).
Moreover, § 2241 was the appropriate vehicle, rather than § 2254, because Galbraith’s claim concerned “the manner in which his sentence was carried out” or the “execution of his sentence” and did not challenge the validity of the judgment giving rise to the sentence. Absent that, the Court said, § 2254 is inappropriate per Richie v. Scott, 70 F.3d 1269 (5th Cir. 1995)— an unpublished decision that is binding in the Fifth Circuit because it was dated before January 1, 1996, per Local Rule 47.5.3. That also meant that the one-year limitations period under § 2254 did not apply to Galbraith’s claim.
However, the Court noted, federal habeas relief for state prisoners requires them first to exhaust state-court remedies. Did Galbraith do that? He couldn’t, the Court continued; in Louisiana, the only way to challenge a parole decision is after the Board has not granted a revocation hearing, which in turn must show that the parolee violated his conditions of release. Since Galbraith was never released, and he never had a revocation hearing, the Fifth Circuit concluded that he had no state remedy to exhaust.
In fact, after the Board granted parole, its discretion to rescind parole before his release was limited to a finding that he either “(1) violated the terms of his work release, or (2) engaged in misconduct,” under La. Admin. Code, tit. 22, Pt XI, section 504(K). Since neither condition was present, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case with instructions to release Galbraith subject to the conditions of his earlier-granted parole. See: Galbraith v. Hooper, No. 22-30159 (5th Cir. 2023).
But Galbraith still wasn’t in the clear; the Court issued another order on February 6, 2024, withholding the mandate, withdrawing its opinion then on March 19, 2024. See: Galbraith v. Hooper, 2024 U.S. App. LEXIS 6763 (5th Cir.). Just over three months later, the Court vacated the order withholding the mandate. PLN will update the Court’s substituting opinion whenever it finally arrives. Galbraith was represented before the Court by New Orleans attorney Nicholas J. Trenticosta, Esq. of Herrero & Trenticosta. See: Galbraith v. Hooper, USCA (5th Cir), Case No. 22-30159 (2024).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Galbraith v. Hooper
| Year | 2024 |
|---|---|
| Cite | USCA (5th Cir), Case No. 22-30159 (2024) |
| Level | Court of Appeals |
| Conclusion | Default |