IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

Lonnie Jergens,

Plaintiff

 v.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and

Correction Adult Parol Authority, et al,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:10-cv-01183

Judge Graham

Magistrate Judge Abel

ORDER

Plaintiff Lonnie Jergens, a state prisoner, brings this action alleging that

defendants State of Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Corrections Adult Parole

Authority Ohio Parole Board (“OAPA”), Ellen W. Venters, and Bobby Bogan violated

his rights arising under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. This matter is before the

Court on plaintiff Lonnie Jergens' June 29, 2011 objections to Magistrate Judge Abel's 

June 13, 2011 Report and Recommendation that defendants’ April 15, 2011 motion to

dismiss for failure to state a claim be granted.

Upon de novo review in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B),

the Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation and GRANTS defendants’ April

15, 2011 motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. (Doc. 11). 

Plaintiff argues that Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) permits challenges to

parole procedures under section 1983. Plaintiff maintains that a protected liberty

1

Case: 2:10-cv-01183-JLG-MRA Doc #: 24 Filed: 07/11/11 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
interest under state law was established in Layne v. Adult Parole Authority, 97 Ohio St. 3d

456 (2002). Because Ohio law created a protected liberty interest, due process rights

attach to the parole procedures challenged by plaintiff. Plaintiff contends that because

state law requires meaningful review a liberty interest in parole exists. According to

plaintiff, completely discretionary procedures would not require meaningful review. 

The Magistrate Judge correctly stated that there is no constitutional or inherent

right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid

sentence. Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). An

inmate does “not have a sufficient liberty interest in his future parole release to be

entitled to due process in his parole release proceedings.” Sharp v. Leonard, 611 F.2d 136,

137 (6th Cir. 1979). Plaintiff’s reliance on Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (2005) is

misplaced. In Dotson, the United States Supreme Court held that § 1983 was a possible

vehicle to challenge the constitutionality of state parole procedures, but this does not

mean that there are due process rights with regard to Ohio’s parole procedures. Ohio

has not created a protected liberty interest in parole. Michael v. Ghee, 498 F.3d 372, 378

(6th Cir. 2007). Jergens’ reliance on Ohio’s “meaningful consideration” doctrine does

not alter this conclusion. In Layne v. OAPA, 97 Ohio St. 3d 456 (2002), the Ohio Supreme

Court concluded that “meaningful consideration” was required by Ohio’s parole

statutes, but it did not make any findings with respect to constitutional due process.

Although Jergens maintains that he was denied meaningful consideration, section 1983

does not provide relief for a violation of state law.

2

Case: 2:10-cv-01183-JLG-MRA Doc #: 24 Filed: 07/11/11 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>
The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter JUDGMENT for defendants. This

action is hereby DISMISSED.

s/ James L. Graham 

James L. Graham

United States District Judge 

Date: July 11, 2011 

3

Case: 2:10-cv-01183-JLG-MRA Doc #: 24 Filed: 07/11/11 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: <pageID>