Douglas Ankrom et al. v. Harry Hageman et al.
Update September 23, 2008

Procedural History

In March 2001 the Office of the Ohio Public Defender filed a class-action lawsuit against the Ohio Adult Parole Authority and its subdivision, the Ohio Parole Board. The suit is captioned Douglas Ankrom et al. v. Harry Hageman et al. and was filed in Franklin County.  In Ankrom, the Ohio Public Defender challenged the Parole Board’s application of new parole guidelines adopted in 1998.  These guidelines dramatically increased the length of time that inmates must serve before becoming eligible for parole. As a result, thousands of inmates have been forced to serve two and three times the maximum sentences possible under current law. 

The Plaintiff class is comprised of “all parole-eligible Ohio prison inmates who pleaded guilty or no contest to lesser or fewer charges than for which they were indicted.” Anyone who meets this definition is automatically a plaintiff in the lawsuit. 

In December 2002 – while the Ankrom suit was pending – the Ohio Supreme Court decided three related parole cases, two of which were litigated by the Ohio Public Defender.  In Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority, the Court held that the Parole Board must classify offenders according to the crimes they were convicted of committing. Before Layne, the Parole Board used its new guidelines to punish inmates for charges that resulted in acquittals at trial, as well as charges that were dropped or never brought in the first place. 

The Parole Board granted approximately 2,500 inmates new parole hearings in response to Layne.  Of those, approximately 1,400 were released from prison on parole and approximately 200 more were given shorter sentences.  Unfortunately, thanks to the Parole Board’s extremely narrow interpretation of Layne, thousands of inmates entitled to new hearings did not receive them. 

On January 16, 2004, the Plaintiffs filed their Motion for Summary Judgment in the trial court.  On August 31, 2004, the Ankrom court granted the Ohio Public Defender’s motion for summary judgment.  The court’s decision orders the Parole Board to immediately grant new parole hearings for thousands of inmates who have been denied meaningful consideration for parole. 

On September 29, 2004, the Parole Board appealed the trial court’s decision to the Tenth District Court of Appeals in Franklin County.  However, on March 31, 2005, the court of appeals affirmed all significant portions of the trial court's August 31, 2004 decision granting the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment.  The appellate court's unanimous decision was a major victory for the Ankrom plaintiff class.  The court's decision is available here. 

The Parole Board had until May 16, 2005 to appeal the Tenth District's decision to the Ohio Supreme Court.  No appeal was filed, and all affirmed portions of the trial court's August 31, 2004 decision became final.  However, following the Plaintiffs victory on appeal, the Parole Board released a list of inmates eligible for new hearings under Ankrom.  This list was compiled without any consultation with the Ohio Public Defender or the trial court. The criteria used by the Parole Board to form this list did not correspond to the criteria contained in the trial court's August 31, 2004 decision.  As a result, many Plaintiff class members who qualified for a new parole hearing were not included on the Parole Board's list. 

The Ohio Public Defender and the Parole Board's attorneys subsequently met with the trial court on June 3, 2005.  At that meeting, Plaintiffs submitted a memorandum detailing Defendants' failure to comply with the trial court's August 31, 2004 Decision and Entry.  On June 10, 2005, Defendants submitted a memorandum in response claiming that Defendants are fully satisfying the trial court's judgment.  On June 21, 2005, Plaintiffs filed a motion to show cause why Defendants should not be held in contempt of court.  In that motion, Plaintiffs allege that Defendants are 1) illegally denying thousands of Plaintiff class members the new parole hearings to which they are entitled; 2) failing to conduct the court-ordered rehearings as fast as possible; and 3) rendering much of Plaintiffs' court-ordered relief unenforceable and illusory by refusing to maintain adequate records of, and access to, class members' rehearings.

On September 14, 2005, the trial court issued a decision ordering the Parole Board's attorneys “to immediately provide Plaintiffs' counsel with the necessary information to determine if meaningful hearings are occurring and how many have been accomplished.” The court stated that it will "further consider" Plaintiffs' contempt motion after this information has been supplied.  The court's decision is available here.

On May 5, 2006, lead attorney Charles Clovis and the Office of the Ohio Public Defender filed a Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction.  In this Motion, Plaintiffs are asking the Court to order the Adult Parole Authority to stop conducting parole re-hearings in secret.  A copy of the motion and exhibits are available here.  However, on June 20, 2006, the trial court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief.  

Recent Developments

There has been a significant development in the Ankrom litigation.  As a result of a recent ruling, the defendants will be conducting parole eligibility hearings for over 150 inmates who have not previously received Ankrom-complaint hearing.

On February 29, 2008, the Office of the Ohio Attorney General filed Defendant’s Notice of Completion of Re-Hearings and Motion to Terminate the Action.  In its pleading, the Attorney General argued that the Ohio Parole Board had reheard all the class members entitled to a rehearing and moved to terminate the class action.  The Attorney explicitly argued that inmates convicted of the offense of aggravated murder, murder, or rape with life sentences are not class members.

On March 13, 2008, the Office of the Ohio Public Defender filed Plaintiffs’ Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Terminate the Action.  The Office of the Ohio Public Defender strongly disagreed with the Attorney General’s attempted exclusion of these inmates from the class and requested the Court to hold a status conference or a hearing on Plaintiffs’ pending Motion to Show Cause Why Defendants Should Not be Held in Contempt for Failing to Comply with the Court’s August 31, 2004 Decision and Entry.

On May 23, 2008, Judge Cain issued his Decision declaring his intention to enter final judgment and terminate this case unless Plaintiffs’ Counsel can identify offenders who plead guilty to aggravated murder, murder, or rape, but to fewer offenses than indicted within thirty days.  Plaintiff’s Counsel, the Office of the Ohio Public Defender filed Plaintiffs’ Memorandum Identifying Examples of Class Members Who Have Been Denied Meaningful Parole Eligibility Hearings Ordered By This Court In Its August 31, 2004 Decision and Entry.  The Attorney General did not file a responsive pleading.  Judge Cain scheduled a status conference for Monday, August 18, 2008.

On September 10, 2008, the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas issued a Decision reiterating that Ankrom relief applies to all class members who pleaded to a fewer offenses that indicted.  The court ordered the Adult Parole Authority to grant new parole hearings to "all Ankrom class members with indeterminate life sentences who have been convicted of aggravated murder, murder and/or rape."  As a result, all class members convicted of those offenses who have not previously received an Ankrom hearing will now receive an Ankrom hearing.

Concerns about the parole board's continuing failure to afford meaningful consideration originally arose when attorneys for the plaintiff class began receiving hundreds of complaints from class members who received less-than-meaningful consideration during Ankrom re-hearings.  The trial court has yet to rule on Plaintiffs Motion to Show Cause Why Defendants Hageman Et Al.  Should Not Be Held In Contempt For Failing to Comply With the Court's August 31, 2004 Decision and Entry, which was filed on June 21, 2005.

 Second Amended Complaint 

• Exhibit A  - Ohio Parole Board Guidelines Manual

• Exhibit B  - Plaintiff Ankrom's Indictment, Plea Agreement, and Sentence

• Exhibit C  - Plaintiff Harth's Indictment, Plea Agreement and Sentence

• Exhibit D  - Plaintiff Herrington's Indictment, Plea Agreement, and Sentence

• Exhibit E  - Plaintiff Lilly's Indictment and Sentence

• Exhibit F -  Plaintiff Ankrom's Parole Board Decision

• Exhibit G - Plaintiff Harth's Parole Hearing Record

• Exhibit H - Plaintiff Herrington's Parole Board Decision

For a complete copy of the Second Amended Complaint click here!

• Notice of Preliminary Injunction

• Decision Denying Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

• Entry Granting Motion of Plaintiffs, Douglas Ankrom et al.  for Class Certification

• Layne v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth. Opinion from the Ohio Supreme Court website

• August 31, 2004 Decision Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment

• March 31, 2005 Tenth District Court of Appeals Opinion

• September 14, 2005 Decision

Motion for Temporary Restraining Order

• Exhibit A - Affidavit of Charles B. Clovis

• Exhibit B - Post- Layne polices and procedures 

• Exhibit C - Defendants' spreadsheets

• Exhibit D - Three representative decision sheets from Defendants' most recent disclosure to Plaintiffs

• Exhibit E - Letter from Plaintiff class members

Press Releases

• April 1, 2005 - Appeals Court affirms Ankrom decision, says Parole Authority fails to provide meaningful consideration

• September 7, 2004 - Recent court ruling on parole hearings should result in prison closing, 
  saving state tens of millions of dollars

For questions, please call or write to:

Timothy Young

State Public Defender

Amy Borror

Public Information Officer

Email:  Amy.Borror@opd.state.oh.us

Office of the Ohio Public Defender

250 East Broad Street - Suite 1400

Columbus Ohio  43215

(614)  466-5394

1-800-686-1573

"Laws alone can not secure freedom of expression; in order that every man present his views without penalty there must be spirit of tolerance in the entire population."

Albert Einstein