Opinion ID: 718033
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Denial of Assistance by Inmate of Choice

Text: 4 Oregon law allows an inmate to be accompanied and represented by a third party at a parole hearing pursuant to rules promulgated by the Board and the Department of Corrections. See Or.Rev.Stat. § 144.123. One such rule allowed the inmate to be accompanied by the person of his choice provided the person met the requirements for visiting. See Or.Admin.R. 255-30-025(2) (1987). On April 5, 1990, prior to Whaley's hearing, the Board adopted a new version of the rule that provided for representation by an assigned inmate representative. Or.Admin.R. 255-30-025(2). Whaley argues that the new version of the rule was not in effect at the time of his hearing, and that even if it was, he did not receive sufficient notice prior to his hearing. However, we need not decide whether the new rule was in effect at the time of Whaley's hearing. 5 Neither version of the rule created a protected liberty interest in having a particular accompanist. See Allen, 482 U.S. at 373, 107 S.Ct. at 2418; Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 11, 99 S.Ct. at 2105. Even if Whaley thought that he had an unrestricted right to choose whomever he liked to accompany him, the Board's actions did not amount to a violation of due process. Whaley was notified of his parole hearing and that his selected accompanist would not be able to accompany him. He was also provided with an opportunity to be heard, and he could have obtained a continuance and selected a different person. Instead, he decided to let the hearing go forward in his absence. As the record demonstrates, although Whaley chose not to participate in his parole hearing, he was given the full opportunity to do so. Nothing more was required. See Greenholtz, 442 U.S. at 16, 99 S.Ct. at 2108; Jancsek, 833 F.2d at 1390; Pedro, 825 F.2d at 1399.