Source: https://casetext.com/case/smith-v-kelley-16
Timestamp: 2019-04-20 08:36:13+00:00

Document:
This Recommended Disposition ("Recommendation") has been sent to Judge James M. Moody Jr. Mr. Smith may file written objections with the Clerk of Court. To be considered, objections must be filed within 14 days. Objections should be specific and should include the factual or legal basis for the objection.
Summary dismissal of a habeas corpus petition - prior to any answer or other pleading being filed by the respondent - is appropriate where the petition itself and court records show that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Habeas Corpus Cases in the United States District Court.
The federal habeas statute "unambiguously provides that a federal court may issue a writ of habeas corpus to a state prisoner 'only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.'" Wilson v. Corcoran, 562 U.S. 1, 5 (2010) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)). To the extent that Mr. Smith complains that state authorities have failed to comply with state laws or failed to follow its own policies, these claims are not cognizable in a federal habeas action. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011) (omitting citations).
A due process violation may arise from an expectation or interest created by state law or policies. Jenner v. Nikolas, 828 F.3d 713, 716 (8th Cir. 2016). Under established law, however, Mr. Smith does not have a protected liberty interest in the possibility of being granted parole. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011) (holding there is no federal constitutional right to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid sentence, and the state is under no duty to offer parole to prisoners.) Nothing in the Arkansas parole statutes creates anything more than the possibility of parole. Thus, the statutes do not establish any right to release on parole that would trigger due process protection. Pittman v. Gaines, 905 F.2d 199, 201 (8th Cir. 1990); Parker v. Corrothers, 750 F.2d 653, 655-57 (8th Cir. 1984); see also Hamilton v. Brownlee, 237 Fed. Appx. 114, 115 (8th Cir. 2007) (unpublished). Because Mr. Smith has no federal liberty interest in the possibility of obtaining parole, there is no constitutional right at stake here.
The Court recommends that Jeffrey Smith's petition for writ of habeas corpus (#2) be DISMISSED, without prejudice; that his motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (#1) be DENIED as moot; and that a certificate of appealability be DENIED.

References: v. 
 § 2254
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.