Melvin Crosby Bey, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Dr. George C. Zoley et al., 

Defendants. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE 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 plaintiffs pro se complaint and his application to 

proceed in forma pauperis. The Court will grant the application to proceed in forma pauperis 

and dismiss the complaint. 

Plaintiff, who was recently released from federal prison where he was serving a sentence 

imposed by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, 1 alleges that his constitutional due 

process rights were violated by the defendants for allegedly depriving him of his "entitlement to 

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 of his 

entitlement to release, see id ~~ 39-40. 

The complaint, and each of its claims, is based upon the premise that plaintiff has an 

entitlement to release to a CCC or home confinement, see id at 1, and that such entitlement is 

1 See Crosby Bey's petition 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 plaintiff has no 

constitutionally-protected liberty interest in parole release and placement in a halfway house. 

"[A] lawfully imprisoned convict's interest in the possibility of being released on parole prior to 

expiration of the term of his sentence does not entitle him to due process protection, absent the 

creation of a 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 of Columbia prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in 

parole and therefore have no protections under the due process clause with respect to parole 

determinations or procedures. Ellis v. District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413, 1415-20 

(D.C.Cir.l996); accord Blair-Bey v. Quick, 151 F.3d 1036, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1998); Brandon v. 

District of Columbia Board of Parole, 823 F.2d 644,648 (D.C. Cir. 1987). 

Because the complaint fails to state a due process claim upon which relief may 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 on the same faulty premise, they too, will be dismissed. Id. To 

the extent that any state common law claim might survive the faulty premise on which it is based, 

supplemental jurisdiction 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