NOT RECOMMENDED F OR F ULL-TEXT PUBLICATION File Na me: 13a0196n.06 No. 12-1773 UNI TED STATES COURT OF A PPEAL S FOR THE SI XTH CI RCUI T DAMI EN LAMAR TAYL OR, aka D amien Ta ylor, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. J AMES M. GRAVES, Circuit J udg e; J OHN PREL ESNI K, Warden; K. A . KRI CK, Assistant Resident Unit Supervisor; J . PAYNE, Resident Unit Manag er, Def endants-A

ppellees. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DI STRI CT OF MI CHI GAN

Be fore : MARTI

N and SUTTON , Circuit J udg es; HOOD , District J udg e. *

PER CURI AM. Damien L amar Taylor, a pro se Michig an prisoner, appea ls a district court judgme nt dismiss ing his civil rig hts action, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Upon examination,

we una nimously ag ree that oral a

rgument is not needed. F ed. R. App. P. 34(a)

. Taylor was convicted of first-degree murder and other offe nses afte r he and others attacke d and attempted to rob a cra ck house. People v. Taylor , No. 210567 , 2 0 0 0 W L 3 3 4 09145, at *1–2 (Mich. Ct. App. Aug

. 11, 2000). The trial court sentenc ed Taylor to concur rent terms of life without parole for the first-deg ree murder conviction and lesser sentenc es for the other c onvictions. Id. at *1. The Michig an Court of Appea ls aff irmed the convictions, id. , and the Michig an Supreme Court denied Ta y lor leave to appea l.

The Honora

ble J oseph M

. Ho od, United States District J udg e for the Easter n District of * Kentucky , sitti ng by

desig nation.No. 12-1773

Taylor v. Grave

s, et al. Taylor filed his § 1983 complaint alleg ing that his Parole Eligibility / L i fer Review Report (“Repor t”) incorre ctly descr ibed his murder conviction and a cer tain conspirac y conviction. He claimed that the err ors violated his due proce ss rig ht to have acc urate information in his rec ord and
soug ht a jury trial, a parole board interview, corr ection of the Report, monetary damag es, and costs. The district court dismiss ed the complaint as meritless pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) , 1915A, and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)

. On appea l, Taylor argues that: (1) he was convicte d o f aiding and abetting murder, and Michig an law does not exclude that crime from parole elig ibilit y ; and (2) his due proce ss rig hts wer e violated when inc orre ct offe nse information was included in the Repor t. The district court’s decision is revie wed de novo. Hill v. Lappin , 630 F.3d 468, 470 (6th Cir. 2010); Grinter v. Knight , 532 F.3d 567, 571–72 ( 6th Cir. 2008). Taylor argu es t hat he was convicted of first-degree murder only on an aiding-a nd-abe tting theory and that this information should have been included in the Report. “A prisoner has a limit ed rig ht to have err oneous information expunged from his prison file.” Johnson v. CCA-Ne. Ohio Corr. Ctr. W arden , 21 F. App’x 33 0 , 332 (6th Cir. 2001). To establish such a claim, the prisoner must show that the information at issue is: (1) in his prison file; (2) fa l s e; an d (3) “re lied on to a constitutionally

signific ant deg ree .” Id. To establish the under ly ing due proce ss rig ht pursuant to the “cons t i t u t i o n al ly signific ant” portion of that test, Taylor must show that he has a protec ted interest in parole

. See Gree nholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex , 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979); Inmates of Orient Corr. Inst. v. Ohio State Adult Parole Auth. , 929 F.2d 233, 235 (6th Cir. 1991)

. A l iberty interest in parole eligi b i l i t y d er i ves onl y from st ate law. See, e.g. , Crump v. L afler , 657 F.3d 393, 397 ( 6th Cir. 2011); Inmates of Orient Corr. Inst. , 929 F.2d at 235.
- 2 -No. 12-1773

Taylor v. Grave

s, et al. Taylor has not met these standards. The rec ord establishes that Taylor was g rante d a parole interview. Fur

ther, he has not shown that the information in the Report as to his murder conviction

was false. He also has not established that the alleg ed err or as to the conspirac y conviction violated his due proce ss rig hts. His claim that he should otherwise have been deeme d elig ible for parole also fails bec a u s e M ic h ig an’s parole sy stem is discretionar y and he lacks a constitutionally protec ted rig ht to parole unde r that sy stem. See, e .g. , Foster v. Book er , 595 F.3d 353, 362, 368 ( 6th Cir. 2010). To the ex tent that T ay lor challeng es hi s sentenc e and conviction di rec tly , those claims are fore closed in a § 1983 action. See Hec k v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486–87 (1994); Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 490 (1973); Lanier v. Bryant , 332 F.3d 999, 1005 (6th Cir. 2003). Finally , Taylor has not ra ised on appe al his claim that he wa s denied a copy of the Repor

t. There fore , this
argument is forfe ited. See, e .g. , Dillery v. City of Sandusky , 398 F.3d 562, 569 ( 6th Cir. 2005). The district cour

t’s judgme nt is affirmed. F ed. R. App. P. 34(a) (2)( C).

- 3 -