203447P.pdf   10/05/2023  Stephanie Gasca  v.  Anne Precythe
   U.S. Court of Appeals Case No:  20-3447
   U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri - Jefferson City   
   [PUBLISHED] [Kobes, Author, with Colloton and Grasz, Circuit Judges] 
   Civil case. In this challenge to Missouri's parole revocation system, 
   Missouri consented to summary judgment, but the district court determined 
   that the revised policies submitted by the Missouri Department of 
   Corrections were insufficient, and it entered a remedy order. The 
   Department appeals. With respect to the procedures to be followed before 
   parole can be revoked, the district court's remedy order concerning notice 
   to parolees before a preliminary hearing were narrowly tailored to the 
   existing violation, and the order was not an abuse of discretion; however, 
   the district court erred in requiring the form provided at the revocation 
   hearing listing the claimed parole violations to be amended to include a 
   section giving parolees an option to retain their own counsel at the 
   hearing; requirement that the Department give parolees five days notice of 
   adverse evidence is not an abuse of the court's discretion; requirement 
   that hearing be held within 30 days of a parolee's being taken into 
   custody was an abuse of the court's discretion; requirement that parolees 
   be notified within 10 days of the decision was not an abuse of the court's 
   discretion; it was not an abuse of the court's discretion to require the 
   Department to provide a written statement of the grounds for revocation so 
   as to create an adequate basis for review; however, the district court did 
   abuse its discretion by requiring the Department to explain the mitigating 
   circumstances it considered; the district court did not abuse its 
   discretion by requiring the Department to make an appeal form available to 
   parolees whose decisions are appealable the day they receive their 
   revocation decision; it was an abuse of the district court's discretion to 
   require the Department to explain why an appeal was denied; requirement 
   that the Department amend the screening sheet used to determine when to 
   appoint counsel to allow parolees to provide additional information about 
   the case was not an abuse of discretion; while the Department must make a 
   statement in the record as to why counsel was denied, it was not obligated 
   to give the parolee a written explanation; the district court did not 
   abuse its discretion by ordering the Department not to hold revocation 
   hearings and incarcerate parolees without required counsel; the order does 
   not require the Department to appoint counsel, and the Department does not 
   need another agency's cooperation to refrain from holding illegal 
   revocation hearings; as a result the Missouri Public Defender Commission 
   was not a required party. Judge Grasz, concurring in part and dissenting 
   in part.