TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Willie Crenshaw v. Robert Parratt

Willie CRENSHAW, Appellant, v. Robert PARRATT, Et Al., Appellees

Crenshaw v. Parratt, 698 F.2d 360 (8th Cir. 1983)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit · U.S. Courts of Appeals
Decided
January 26, 1983
Docket
No. 82-1400
Judges
Bright, Arnold, Gibson
Citations
698 F.2d 3601983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31055

Opinion — Per Curiam

PER CURIAM.

Willie Crenshaw brings this action for damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Robert Parratt, Warden of the Nebraska State Penitentiary. Crenshaw, formerly an inmate of the penitentiary, was scheduled for mandatory parole under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 83-1,111(5) on January 14,1979. Because he refused to sign a form consenting to the customary conditions of mandatory parole, and also refused to appear before the Parole Board, he was not released. The District Court 1

granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. We affirm.

We assume that plaintiff had a liberty interest of which the State could not deprive him without whatever process was due. The difficulty with plaintiff’s case is that he was not deprived of anything. This is not a case, properly understood, in which Crenshaw was denied parole. Rather, he was entitled to parole, the State offered him parole, and he would have received it simply by signing a form. The deprivation, if any, was self-inflicted. No one claims that the usual conditions of parole required by the State are invalid or improper, or that the State had power to waive those conditions.

Perhaps Crenshaw did not understand the situation. Perhaps he thought (wrongly) that he had a legal right to unconditional release. In either event, the State did all it was required to do.

Affirmed.

1

. The Hon. Warren K. Urbom, Chief Judge, United States District Court for the District of Nebraska.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1991: 11996: 219912026peak 1996 · 2

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Homoki v. Northampton County86 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 1996)
  2. Wilson v. Kelkhoff86 F.3d 1438 (7th Cir. 1996)
  3. State v. Staael807 P.2d 513 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991)

Most recent

  1. Homoki v. Northampton County86 F.3d 324 (3d Cir. 1996)
  2. Wilson v. Kelkhoff86 F.3d 1438 (7th Cir. 1996)
  3. State v. Staael807 P.2d 513 (Alaska Ct. App. 1991)

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.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list