United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
ORDER OF SUMMARY DISMISSAL
VICTORIA A. ROBERTS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
state prisoner Douglas Haver filed a pro se
complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Haver is serving a
term of parolable life imprisonment for second-degree murder,
and terms of 5 to 22 years imprisonment and 5 to 15 years
imprisonment for two second-degree criminal sexual conduct
convictions. He names a single defendant, Michael Eagan,
chairman of the Michigan Parole Board and claims that Eagan
improperly failed to provide him a parole interview since
Haver does not have a liberty interest in parole or in a
parole interview, the Court dismisses the complaint for
failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) requires that a complaint set
forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing
that the pleader is entitled to relief, ” as well as
“a demand for the relief sought.” Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2), (3). The purpose of this rule is to “give the
defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the
grounds upon which it rests.” Bell Atlantic Corp.
v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley
v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957) and Fed.R.Civ.P.
8(a)(2)). The notice pleading standard requires more than the
bare assertion of legal conclusions or “an unadorned,
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
“A pleading that offers ‘labels and
conclusions' or ‘a formulaic recitation of the
elements of a cause of action will not do.'”
Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555).
“Nor does a complaint suffice if it tenders
‘naked assertion[s]' devoid of ‘further
factual enhancement.'” Id. at 1949
(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).
Haver paid the full filing fee, the Court screens this
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. This statute directs
the Court to review a civil complaint in which a prisoner
seeks redress from a governmental entity or an employee of a
governmental entity. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(a). On this
review, the Court must dismiss the complaint if it is
frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted. 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1).
state a federal civil rights claim, a plaintiff must allege
that (1) he was deprived of a right, privilege, or immunity
secured by the federal Constitution or laws of the United
States, and (2) the deprivation was caused by a person acting
under color of state law. Flagg Bros. v. Brooks, 436
U.S. 149, 155-57 (1978). A pro se civil rights
complaint is to be construed liberally. Haines v.
Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972).
challenges the Michigan Parole Board's failure to grant
him a parole interview. He alleges a violation of his right
to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Fourteenth Amendment provides, in part: “nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
The Fourteenth Amendment protects “the individual
against arbitrary action of government.” Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558 (1974).
is no federal constitutional right to parole. Greenholtz
v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex,
442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979); see also Michael v. Ghee, 498
F.3d 372, 377-78 (6th Cir. 2007) (quoting Swihart v.
Wilkinson, 209 Fed. App'x 456, 458-59 (6th Cir.
2006)). While there is no federal constitutional right to
parole, a State's laws may create a liberty interest in
parole subject to constitutional protection if state law
entitles a prisoner to release on parole. See Kentucky
Dep't of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460
(1989) (citing Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 466
(1983)). Michigan law does not create a liberty interest in
parole. See Sweeton v. Brown, 27 F.3d 1162, 1164-65
(6th Cir. 1994) (en banc); see also Crump v. Lafler,
657 F.3d 393, 404 (6th Cir. 2011). Under Sixth Circuit
precedent, the failure to grant a Michigan prisoner a parole
interview does not implicate federal due process. See
Wershe v. Combs, 763 F.3d 500, 506 (6th Cir. 2014)
(affirming district court's dismissal of due process
claim arising from Michigan Parole Board's actions in
sending the prisoner an interview notice, but not conducting
the interview nor explaining why it was not held, because the
prisoner had no liberty interest in parole); Irvin v.
Michigan Parole Bd., 221 F.3d 1334 (table), 2000 WL
800029, *2 (6th Cir. 2000) (prisoner failed to state a due
process claim because he had no liberty interest in parole or
parole interview); Neff v. Johnson, 983 F.2d 1068
(table), 1993 WL 11880, *1 (6th Cir. Jan. 21, 1993) (no
protected liberty interest in parole interview under Michigan
a state denial of parole, even if erroneous or based upon
inaccurate information, implicates no federal right. See
Caldwell v. McNutt, 158 Fed. App'x 739, 740-41 (6th
Cir. 2006) (stating that “even if the Parole Board
relied on inaccurate information to deny [the petitioner]
parole, it did not violate any liberty interest protected by
the United States Constitution”); Echlin v.
Boland, 111 Fed.Appx. 415, 417 (6th Cir. 2004) (ruling