Document: 454 U.S. 14 102 S.Ct. 31 70 L.Ed.2d 13 A. R. JAGO, Former Superintendent, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, et al.v.George D. VAN CUREN. No. 80-1942. Nov. 9, 1981. PER CURIAM. 1 After pleading guilty to embezzlement and related crimes, respondent was sentenced by an court not less than 6 nor more 100 years in prison. Under existing law would have become eligible for parole March 1976. On January 1, 1974, however, enacted a "shock parole" statute which provided the early of first offenders who had served six months prison nonviolent crimes. Rev.Code Ann. § 2967.31 (1975). 2 Pursuant this statute, interviewed on April 17, panel representing Adult Parole Authority (OAPA). The recommended that be paroled "on or after 23, 1974," OAPA subsequently approved panel's recommendation. Respondent notified decision agreement stated: 3 "The Members Board agreed you earned opportunity eventually final release from your present conviction. is therefore ordering Release case." Brief Opposition 1. 4 attended completed prerelease classes measured civilian clothes. 5 At meeting days interview with respondent, informed been entirely truthful plan he submitted his officers. Specifically, told embezzled $1 million when fact $6 million, reported live half brother if intended homosexual lover.1 As result these revelations, rescinded its earlier grant continued case June 1974 at formally denied. Neither any other time granted hearing explain false statements made during submitted. denial parole, brought mandamus action against OAPA. Supreme Court held required it could commanded recall rescinding parole. State ex rel. Van Curen v. Authority, 45 St.2d 298, 345 N.E.2d 75 (1976). We denied respondent's petition certiorari review Ohio. 429 959, 97 382, 50 326 7 then filed writ habeas corpus Federal District Ohio, claiming rescission without violated right due process under United States Constitution. Appeals Sixth Circuit summarily affirmed denial. Jago, 578 F.2d 1382 (1978). certiorari, vacated judgment Appeals, remanded further consideration light our Greenholtz Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 99 2100, 60 668 (1979); Jago Curen, 926, 2854, 61 294 (1979). 8 remand turn consideration. Applying Greenholtz, determined "early matter grace" "is fairly unambiguous no protectable interest arises until actual release." App. Pet. Cert. 24A-25A. Accordingly, did violate process. 9 appeal, acknowledged "[p]arole prisoners lies wholly within discretion OAPA," "[t]he statutes provide do create protected liberty purposes." 641 411, 414 (1981). Nonetheless, reversed Court. Relying upon language Perry Sindermann, 408 593, 92 2694, 33 570 (1972), concluded such as asserted can arise "mutually explicit understandings." Seeid., 601, S.Ct., 2699. Thus, held: "Having 'ha[d] paroled' 'the case,' [respondent] legitimate expectation effected. This interest, deprivation indeed constitute grievous loss. It taken him according [him] procedural process." F.2d, 416. 10 doubt suffered "grievous loss" OAPA's But we previously "reject[ed] . notion loss visited person sufficient invoke protections Due Process Clause." Meachum Fano, 427 215, 224, 96 2532, 2538, 49 451 In case, previous cases, question merely 'weight' individual's but whether nature one contemplation 'liberty property Fourteenth Amendment.' " Morrissey Brewer, 471, 481, 2593, 2600, 484 (1972). hold erred finding constitutionally reliance understandings" supra. 11 Our Sindermann concerned only Amendment's protection "property" interests, language, relied expressly so limited: 12 "We clear [Board Regents Roth, 564, 571-572, 2701, 2705-2706, 548 (1972)], 'property' interests subject are limited few rigid, technical forms. Rather, denotes broad range secured 'existing rules understandings.' Id., 577 [92 2709]. A person's benefit purposes there mutually understandings support claim entitlement may hearing." U.S., To illustrate way operate two analogous doctrines. First, compared implied contracts: "[The] absence contractual provision always foreclose possibility teacher has re-employment. [T]he contracts most, all, jurisdictions long employed agreements, though formalized writing, 'implied.' 601-602, 2699-2700. 15 That implied-contract aspect "understandings" creation illustrated Bishop Wood, 426 341, 2074, 48 684 (1976), another conclude "[a] employment can, course, created ordinance, contract." 344, 2077 (footnote omitted). 16 Principles contract naturally serve useful guides determining exists. Such principles not, readily lend themselves existence setting prisoner supra, recognized administrators penal systems need considerable latitude operating those systems, necessarily 17 "Our cases convicted felon does forfeit all constitutional reason conviction confinement He retains variety important rights courts must alert protect. See Wolff McDonnell, 418 [539] 556 [94 2963, 2979, 41 935], cited. none reaches one; urged substantial imposed authorities triggers Clause judicial wide spectrum discretionary actions traditionally business rather federal courts." 225, 2538. 18 severely restrict necessary flexibility were their myriad decisions respect individual inmates may, general contracts, give rise "liberty" thereafter impaired mandated Clause. 19 second analogy content labor principle tradition history industry plant add substance collective-bargaining agreements. 602, 2700. Just last Term, rejected argument sort "industrial common law" setting. Connecticut Pardons Dumschat, 452 458, 101 2460, 69 158 (1981),2 relying frequency past commuted life sentences, argued consistency Board's unwritten sentence commutation acceleration,' given 'an unspoken understanding between [of Pardons] inmates.' 465, 2464 (emphasis added) (quoting Respondents, O.T. 1980, 79-1997, pp. 17-18). responded: 20 "No how frequently particular form clemency granted, statistical probabilities standing alone generate protections; contrary conclusion trivialize ground claim, any, found defining obligations authority charged exercising clemency." 2464. 21 far place Amendment. 22 majority opinion observed: "Parole 414. dissent, Judge Phillips explained: 23 "In Newman Lowery, 157 St. 463, 464, 105 643 (1952), cert. denied, 344 881 [73 176, L.Ed. 682] said: 'The being Pardon Commission, commission rescind order 1950, granting effective future date.' 418. 24 Notwithstanding purely matter, that, once recommendation made, entitled purpose explaining representations because initial gave understanding." stated, deal here think reasoning Appeals' own concession creates require reversal holding prior June.3 25 motion proceed forma pauperis 26 Reversed. 27 Justice BLACKMUN, concurring result. 28 I agree reversed, am troubled rationale Court's per curiam opinion, join it. 29 rest stated dissent is, law, state before becomes effective. 417-418. seems me mutual here. Respondent's unilateral attached. also existed circumstances inasmuch based untruths; reasonably believe released. 30 That, feel, needs go. see go suggest, does, interest. distinction appropriate one, yet prepared say so, certainly summary reversal. (1981), stand proposition, 482, suggests understanding. STEVENS, whom BRENNAN MARSHALL join, dissenting. 32 Because facts unusual, surprising considers address merits. even decided mootness adopting persuaded BRENNAN, POWELL, Scott Kentucky Board, 60, 342, 218; Vitek Jones, 436 407, 410, 98 2276, 2277, 56 381 (STEVENS, J., dissenting). ante, 21-22, n. 3. Nevertheless, unable disposition fashioned revoke deny Arbitrary revocation prohibited 484, whereas arbitrary permitted 9-11, 2104-2105, 668.1 Even accepts validity dubious distinction,2 misapplies case. 34 view, exist. profound change status occurs paroled; greater legal before. what event status, act walking through exit gates State's formal decision, conveyed prisoner, conditional freedom. 35 For ordinary litigant, entry decisionmaker—not execution sheriff determines rights. my orderly decisionmaking Amendment dictate similar answer context pointed out: 36 parolee stake liberty. Society whatever chance restoring normal law. thus having revoked erroneous information evaluation breach conditions. And society treating basic fairness: fair treatment revocations will enhance rehabilitation avoiding reactions arbitrariness." 2601 (citation footnote 37 quite precisely implicated 38 When acted basis parte explain. accurate sufficiently justify changed effect today allow wrong arbitrary. erroneous.3 If allowed parties argue merits issue—instead acting incomplete presentation—the error might avoided. events, respectfully dissent. brief opposition contest misrepresented amount interviewing panel, admits "that total over dollars." Respondent, 2. Moreover, relationship planned release. 2-3. STEVENS' dissenting appears follow view 22, 2111-2112, (1979) (MARSHALL, joined JJ., part), 468 2466 understandable involved return custody release, expectations probation, thought "dubious" dissented latter cases. expressed dissents opinions cannot regarded controlling Petitioners contend moot Weinstein Bradford, 423 147, 347, 46 350 (1975), now paroled. disagree. Although true released conditioned compliance terms significantly example, receive written permission changing residence, job, traveling out state, report local enforcement out-of-state destination travels, maintain checking account, monthly officer, imprisoned violation conditions Affidavit Support Motion Proceed Forma Pauperis. Weinstein, contrast, noted "respondent temporarily December 18, ripened into complete supervision 25, 1975. From date forward [was] plain [could] procedures followed petitioners parole." 148, 348 added). Similarly, Jones Cunningham, 371 236, 83 373, 285 (1963), where received virtually identical "in custody" dismissing appeal moot. 241-243, 376-377. period years; free supervision. Had likely longer restrictions Therefore, affirm lower court's should hearing, instructions determine resulted 1974. flexible relief permit living. Indeed, response affirmatively states "immediately seek 7. (1978), 218 cited Courts consider question. and, above discussion indicates, correctly controversy remains. Cf. (arbitrary application permissible). 19-20, 2110 (POWELL, part part); id., 25-29, 2113-2115 part). 470, 2467 whether, circumstances, including conferred rules, freedom attach. question, (CA6 1981). rules: reach guidelines establish narrowly defined circumstances. There evidence guidelines. Nor base percent Ohio's grants rescinded. Dumschat Pardons, 618 216 (2d Cir.), [449 898, 266, 66 127] (1980). paroles generally proof directed specifically shock comparatively new method lead ineluctably acts Curen." 416-417 (citations "the 'mutually understandings' Amendment," 20, remains notifying specific trigger protections. instead "concession Appeals] 'liberty' interest." Ante, 21. narrowest limit analysis examination laws; they exclude individual.

Category: 3