Johnny Hunter v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission
Johnny HUNTER, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE & PROBATION COMMISSION, Respondent
Summary
Syllabus and headnotes are prepared by the reporter or publisher, not the court, and are not part of the opinion.
Opinion
PER CURIAM:
The appellant, Johnny Hunter, filed a pro se petition for the writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 , in which he contended that the Florida Parole and Probation Commission violated his right to due process by improperly calculating his presumptive parole release date. Acting upon a recommendation of the magistrate, the district court dismissed the action for the reason that the Florida parole statutes create no constitutionally protected liberty interest.
The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies when government action deprives a person of liberty or property.
Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 7 , 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2103 , 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). While there is no inherent or constitutional right to conditional release before the expiration of a valid sentence, a state may create a protectible liberty interest in the establishment of a parole system.
Id.
at 12 , 99 S.Ct. at 2106 . The former Fifth Circuit has held, however, that no liberty interest in parole was created by the Florida statutes.
Staton v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1982). We agree.
Accordingly, we hold that the petition was properly dismissed as there was no deprivation of a federally protected right.
AFFIRMED.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 2 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(stating that the petitioner could not show a due process violation by alleging that the Commission improperly calculated his PPRD because there is no liberty interest in parole)
-
(in the context of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, rejecting a due process claim based on the calculation of petitioner’s PPRD because Florida statutes create no constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole)
Cited by 17 cases
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
- Tooma v. Florida Parole Commission
- William Henry Robinson v. Michael J. Satz
- Donald F. Buxton v. City of Plant City, Florida, Troy E. Surrency, Individually, Troy E. Surrency, in His Official Capacity
- George Samuel Jonas v. Louie L. Wainwright, Sec., Florida Department of Corrections, Florida Parole & Pro. Commission
- Harry Slocum v. Georgia State Board Of Pardons And Paroles
- Charles J. Arndt, Inc., a Corporation v. City of Birmingham, a Municipal Corporation
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.