Release.

• Position: Brief Article

U.S. District Court

PAROLE-GRANTING

PAROLE-DUE PROCESS

EX POST FACTO

Crump v. Kansas 143 F.Supp.2d 1256 (D.Kan. 2001). An inmate who was denied paroled filed a [section] 1983 action against a state claiming that procedures used at his parole hearing violated his due process rights, and that a state law that permitted the parole board to defer an inmate's next parole hearing for ten years violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Constitution. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the inmate had no liberty interest in parole, and therefore could not establish a violation of the Due Process Clause. The court also found that the state's parole hearing deferral law did not violate the inmate's equal protection rights or the Ex Post Facto Clause. (Kansas Parole Board)

U.S. District Court

TIMELY RELEASE

Johnson v. Herman. 132 F.Supp.2d 1130 (N.D.Ind. 2001). A detainee who was incarcerated beyond his release date brought a [section] 1983 action against jail authorities, alleging violation of his substantive due process rights. The district court denied summary judgment for the defendants, finding that a jailer's record notations that a judge had ordered the detainee to remain in jail and later had ordered the detainee released, were admissible as non-hearsay evidence that the jailer did not act with deliberate indifference in retaining custody. The court held that summary judgment was precluded by an issue of material fact as to whether the jail's "Inmate Request Form" policy, which was used to correct defects in its "will call" policy for holding detainees following their appearances in court, was being implemented in a manner suggesting deliberate indifference to the right of detainees to be timely released. The court noted that the jailers were not entitled to qualified immunity because the right of a deta inee not to be held without a court order was clearly established at the time of the incident. (Allen County Jail, Indiana)

U.S. District Court

SEX OFFENDER

Jones v. Puckett, 160 F.Supp.2d 1016 (W.D.Wis. 2001). A prisoner brought a [section] 1983 action against two corrections officials for violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights in labeling him as a sex offender without due process. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The court held that the prisoner did not have a liberty interest in not being identified as a sex offender in prison records, noting...