Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02304/USCOURTS-ca8-06-02304-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leroy Brownlee
Appellee
John Does
Appellee
Ted Hamilton
Appellant

Document Text:

1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2304

___________

Ted Hamilton, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Leroy Brownlee, Chairman, Post Prison *

Transfer Board; John Does, Post Prison * [UNPUBLISHED]

Transfer Board Members, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: June 1, 2007

Filed: June 8, 2007

___________

Before MURPHY, MAGILL, and BENTON, Circuit Judges. 

___________

PER CURIAM.

Arkansas inmate Ted Hamilton appeals the district court’s1

 28 U.S.C.

§ 1915A(b) dismissal without prejudice of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. We grant

Hamilton leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. 

Appellate Case: 06-2304 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/08/2007 Entry ID: 3317648
-2-

Hamilton claimed that defendants violated his due process rights and their own

hearing policy by rescinding an initially favorable parole decision without giving him

notice or an opportunity to participate in the rescission hearing. We conclude that

dismissal for failure to state a claim was proper because Hamilton had no

constitutionally protected liberty interest in the possibility that defendants would grant

him parole upon review of the initial decision, Arkansas parole statutes do not create

a protectable liberty interest in discretionary parole decisions, and Hamilton had no

protectable liberty interest in having defendants follow their hearing policy. See Ark.

Code Ann. § 16-93-701(a)(1) (2006) (“The Parole Board may release on parole any

individual eligible . . . when in its opinion there is a reasonable probability that the

prisoner can be released without detriment to the community or himself or herself.”);

Adams v. Agniel, 405 F.3d 643, 645 (8th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (inmate has no

constitutionally protected liberty interest in possibility of parole); Phillips v. Norris,

320 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir. 2003) (no federal constitutional liberty interest in having

prison officials follow prison regulations); Parker v. Corrothers, 750 F.2d 653, 655-

57 (8th Cir. 1984) (protected liberty interest may be created by state statutes

governing parole; Arkansas parole statutes do not create liberty interest because they

provide that Parole Board “may” grant parole and because substantive limitations on

Board’s discretion are minimal). Absent a protectable liberty interest, due process

protections are not implicated. See Senty-Haugen v. Goodno, 462 F.3d 876, 886 (8th

Cir. 2006) (first question in procedural due process claim is whether plaintiff has been

deprived of protected liberty or property interest). 

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B. 

______________________________

Appellate Case: 06-2304 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/08/2007 Entry ID: 3317648