### Melvin Crosby Bey, Plaintiff,

v. Dr. George C. Zoley et al., Defendants. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FORTHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 

### Civil Action No.

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

# FILED FEB 1 2 2009 N1.NCY MAYER**WKlTTl~10N.**CLERK U.S. 0151,"&1 COURT 

# (J9 U284

This matter is before the Court on plaintiffspro se complaint and his application to proceed informapauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed informapauperis and dismiss the complaint. Plaintiff, who was recently released from federal prison where he was serving a sentence imposed by the Superior Court ofthe District ofColumbia, 1

### alleges thathis constitutional due process rights were violated by the defendants for allegedly depriving him ofhis "entitlementto placement in a CCC [community corrections center, 

### i.

### e., a half-way house]/home confinement six months or more prior to plaintiffs re-parole effective release date." Compl.**~** 

### 36; see also id**~** 

### 37. He also asserts common law claims by alleging that some defendants acted negligently in executing their duties, see id.**~** 

### 41, and that others formed a civil conspiracy to deprive him ofhis entitlement to release, see id**~~** 

### 39-40. The complaint, and each ofits claims, is based upon the premise that plaintiffhas an entitlement to release to a CCC or home confinement, see id at 1, and that such entitlement is

1 

### See Crosby Bey'spetition in Civil Action 08-311 (HHK), D.D.C., filed Feb. 25, 2008.constitutionally protected by the due process clause. This premise is false. The plaintiffhas no constitutionally-protected liberty interest in parole release and placement in a halfway house. "[A] lawfully imprisoned convict's interest inthe possibility ofbeing released onparole priorto expiration ofthe term ofhis sentence does not entitle him to due process protection, absentthe creation ofa regulatory system giving him a right to claim parole release upon meeting certain conditions." 

### Pugliese v. 

### Nelson, 617 F.2d 916,923 (2d Cir.1980) (summarizing the Supreme Court's holding in 

### Greenholtz v. 

### Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979». District ofColumbiaprisoners do nothave a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole and therefore have no protections under the due process clause with respect to parole determinations orprocedures. 

### Ellis v. 

### District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413, 1415-20 (D.C.Cir.l996); 

### accordBlair-Bey v. 

### Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1998); 

### Brandon v. 

### District of Columbia Boardof Parole, 823 F.2d 644,648 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Because the complaint fails to state a due process claim upon which reliefmay be granted to the plaintiff, the due process claim will be dismissed. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Because the state common law are based onthe same faulty premise, theytoo, will be dismissed. 

### Id. To the extentthat any state common law claim might survive the faulty premise on whichit is based, supplementaljurisdiction over the common law claims is declined. 28 U.S.C. 

### § 1367(c)(3). Accordingly, the entire complaint will be dismissed. A final order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

# £/~J~L Date: United States District Judge

2