Release.

U.S. District Court

PAROLE-GRANTING

PAROLE-DUE PROCESS

EX POST FACTO 

Crump v. Kansas 143 F.Supp.2d 1256 (D.Kan. 2001). An inmate who was denied paroled filed a [section] 1983 action against a state claiming that procedures used at his parole hearing violated his due process rights, and that a state law that permitted the parole board to defer an inmate's next parole hearing for ten years violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the inmate had no liberty interest in parole, and therefore could not establish a violation of the Due Process Clause. The court also found that the state's parole hearing deferral law did not violate the inmate's equal protection rights or the Ex Post Facto Clause. (Kansas Parole Board)

U.S. District Court

TIMELY RELEASE

Johnson v. Herman. 132 F.Supp.2d 1130 (N.D.Ind. 2001). A detainee who was incarcerated beyond his release date brought a [section] 1983 action against jail authorities, alleging violation of his substantive due process rights. The district court denied summary judgment for the defendants, finding that a jailer's record notations that a judge had ordered the detainee to remain in jail and later had ordered the detainee released, were admissible as non-hearsay evidence that the jailer did not act with deliberate indifference in retaining custody. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by an issue of material fact as to whether the jail's "Inmate Request Form" policy, which was used to correct defects in its "will call" policy for holding detainees following their appearances in court, was being implemented in a manner suggesting deliberate indifference to the right of detainees to be timely released. The court noted that the jailers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the right of a deta inee not to be held without a court order was clearly established at the time of the incident. (Allen County Jail, Indiana)

U.S. District Court

SEX OFFENDER 

Jones v. Puckett, 160 F.Supp.2d 1016 (W.D.Wis. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against two corrections officials for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights in labeling him as a sex offender without due process. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the prisoner did not have a liberty interest in not being identified as a sex offender in prison records, noting that evaluation of the needs of prisoners was a normal prison procedure and such evaluations were not made a matter of public knowledge in such a way that would constitute a stigma. The court also found that the defendants were entitled to qualified immunity because, at the time of the prisoner's evaluation, no law held that an inmate had a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest in not being so classified. (Oshkosh Correctional Institution, Wisconsin)

U.S. District Court

PAROLE-REVOCATION

Moore v. Hofbauer, 144 F.Supp.2d 877 (E.D.Mich. 2001). A state parolee petitioned for habeas corpus relief alleging that his parole revocation hearing was not timely and that a warden had improperly rescinded his good time credits. The district court denied the petition. The district court held that the state warden's discretionary decision not to award special good time sentence credits to the parole absconder, for the period that he was at large in the community and tested positive for drugs, did not violate the parolee's due process rights. The court found that the final hearing before revocation of parole, which was held two months after the parolee was taken into custody on a parole violator warrant, was reasonably timely even though a state law required the hearing to be held within 45 days. (Marquette Branch Prison, Michigan)

U.S. District Court

PAROLE-DUE PROCESS

Nicolas v. Rhode Island 160 F.Supp.2d 229 (D.R.I. 2001). An inmate brought a [section] 1983 action against a parole board member, in her official and individual capacity, and a state, arising from the board member's question "Have you been practicing a lot of Voodoo and Black Magic?" during the inmate's parole hearing. The district court dismissed the case for failure to state a claim. The court noted that the board member, who was acting in her official capacity when she asked the question, was entitled to absolute immunity from [section] 1983 liability in her individual capacity. (Adult Correctional Institution, Cranston, Rhode Island)

U.S. District Court

PAROLE-REVOCATION

PAROLE-DUE PROCESS

Sparks v. Gaines 144 F.Supp.2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001). A District of Columbia prisoner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his due process rights had been violated by the failure of the U.S. Sentencing Commission to hold a parole revocation hearing in deciding whether to reparole him. The district court denied the petition and found that the Commission was not required to hold a parole revocation hearing. (District of Columbia Board of Parole)

U.S. Appeals Court

CREDIT

DUE PROCESS

Thompson v. Cockrell 263 F.3d 423 (5th Cir. 2001). A state inmate was prematurely paroled due to a state's clerical error and his parole was later revoked for misconduct. The inmate petitioned for federal habeas relief asserting that he was owed credit against his sentence for time spend under mandatory supervision, and seeking to have his good time credits that had accrued prior to early release reinstated. The district court denied the petition and the inmate appealed. The appeals court reversed and remanded. The appeals court held that the inmate had a liberty interested, created from state law, in receiving credit against his sentence for the period spent on mandatory supervision. The court found that the fact that the inmate had been prematurely paroled did not, by itself, entitle the inmate to restoration of good time credits as a matter of constitutional due process. (Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division)