Printer Friendly
The Free Library
19,585,946 articles and books
Member login
User name  
Password 
 
Join us Forgot password?

Boutwell v. Keating.


U.S. Appeals Court

PAROLE -- GRANTING

LIBERTY INTEREST

Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2005). A state inmate INMATE. One who dwells in a part of another's house, the latter dwelling, at the same time, in the said house. Kitch. 45, b; Com. Dig. Justices of the Peace, B 85; 1 B. & Cr. 578; 8 E. C. L. R. 153; 2 Dowl. & Ry. 743; 8 B. & Cr. 71; 15 E. C. L. R. 154; 2 Man. & Ry. 227; 9 B. & Cr.  brought an action under [section] 1983 or alternately for habeas corpus habeas corpus (hā`bēəs kôr`pəs) [Lat.,=you should have the body], writ directed by a judge to some person who is detaining another, commanding him to bring the body of the person in his custody at a specified time to a  relief, challenging the denial of his placement into a state's pre-parole conditional supervision program. The district court dismissed the action and the inmate appealed. The appeals court affirmed af·firm  
v. af·firmed, af·firm·ing, af·firms

v.tr.
1. To declare positively or firmly; maintain to be true.

2. To support or uphold the validity of; confirm.

v.intr.
. The appeals court held that the inmate did not have a due process liberty interest in participating in the program. The court found that state law did not create a due process-protected liberty interest based on the expectation of release. The court noted that state law did not place any limitations on the factors that the corrections department could consider in deciding whether to recommend an inmate for placement in the program. (Harp harp, stringed musical instrument of ancient origin, the strings of which are plucked with the fingers. Harps were found in paintings from the 13th cent. B.C. at Thebes. In different forms it was played by peoples of nearly all lands throughout the ages.  Correctional Center, Oklahoma)
COPYRIGHT 2005 CRS, Inc.
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2005, Gale Group. All rights reserved. Gale Group is a Thomson Corporation Company.

 Reader Opinion

Title:

Comment:



 

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Title Annotation:habeas corpus claim
Publication:Corrections Caselaw Quarterly
Article Type:Brief Article
Geographic Code:1U7OK
Date:May 1, 2005
Words:136
Previous Article:Arline v. City of Jacksonville.
Next Article:Jacobs v. Ramirez.
Topics:



Related Articles
U.S. District Court: COST OF CONFINEMENT.
U.S. District Court: REVOCATION.
U.S. Appeals Court: PAROLE SENTENCE.
U.S. District Court: PAROLE.
U.S. Appeals Court: PAROLE REVOCATION EQUAL PROTECTION.
U.S. District Court: PAROLE-REVOCATION PAROLE-DUE PROCESS EQUAL PROTECTION.
Habeas corpus.
Gant v. Reilly.

Terms of use | Copyright © 2012 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters | Submit articles