United States District Court, N.D. Ohio, Eastern Division
JACKIE N. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
OHIO ADULT PAROLE AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
se Plaintiff Jackie N. Robinson, an Ohio prisoner
incarcerated in the Lake Erie Correctional Institution, has
filed an in forma pauperis civil rights Complaint in
this matter pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the
Ohio Adult Parole Authority (OAPA) and two individual members
of the Ohio Parole Board. (Doc. No. 1.) Although his
Complaint does not set forth clear allegations or claims, the
thrust of the Complaint is that the Defendants have violated
his constitutional rights in connection with a parole
determination. The Plaintiff alleges he has been released on
post-release control a number of times and returned to
prison, and that the OAPA has now wrongly refused to release
him. (Id. at 4.) Among other things, he contends the
OAPA: “has arbitrarily placed [him] in a higher offense
category than he should be”; “is not qualified to
determine when [he] is fit to be released”;
“abuses its discretion by giving pre-senate Bill 2
prisoners more time than senate Bill 2 prisoners”;
“is breaching its duty to give pre-senate Bill 2
prisoners meaningful parole hearings”; and
“violates the ‘Separation of powers' doctrine
by holding pre-senate Bill 2 prisoners for longer than they
can be held under senate Bill 2.” (Id.) He
seeks monetary damages and other relief.
filings by pro se litigants are liberally construed,
Williams v. Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir.
2011), Federal District Courts are required, under 28 U.S.C.
§1915(e)(2)(B), to screen all in forma pauperis
actions brought in Federal Court, and to dismiss before
service any such action that the Court determines is
frivolous or malicious, fails to state a claim on which
relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a
defendant who is immune from such relief. See 28
U.S.C. §1915(e)(2)(B); Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d
468, 470-71 (6th Cir. 2010). In order to state a
claim on which relief may be granted, a complaint must set
forth sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state
claim to relief that is plausible on its face. See
Hill, 630 F.3d at 471 (holding that the dismissal
standard articulated in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S.
662 (2009) and Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544 (2007) governs dismissals for failure to state a
claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)).
Plaintiff's Complaint even liberally construed fails to
allege any plausible constitutional claim on which relief may
be granted under § 1983.
well-established that there is no constitutional or inherent
right of a convicted person to be released on parole before
the expiration of a valid sentence, and “the state of
Ohio has not created a liberty interest in parole
eligibility, as it has a completely discretionary parole
system.” Jergens v. Ohio Dept. of Rehabilitation
and Corrections Adult Parole Authority, 492 Fed.Appx.
567, 570 (6th Cir. 2012), citing Michael v.
Ghee, 498 F.3d 372, 378 (6th Cir. 2007). The
Ohio Courts have held that the Plaintiff was sentenced in the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas in 1979 to a maximum
forty-year sentence that will not be completed under 2019.
See Robinson v. LaRose, No. 2015-T-0051, 2015 WL
6126203 (Ohio App. 11th Dist. Oct. 19, 2015).
Accordingly, to the extent the Plaintiff's action rests
on the faulty premise that he is entitled to release on
parole before the expiration of the term of his maximum
sentence in 2019, his action fails to state any plausible
constitutional claim for purposes of § 1983. See
Jergens, 492 Fed.Appx. at 572 (“Because Ohio law
does not create a liberty interest in parole, Jergens's
§ 1983 claim challenging the OAPA's and the
individual parole-board members' implementation of
Ohio's meaningful-hearing requirements in determining his
eligibility for parole necessarily fails.”).
“§ 1983 does not provide relief for a violation of
state law.” Michael, 498 F.3d at 374.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff has not alleged a viable federal
constitutional claim on the basis of allegations suggesting
that the Defendants failed to properly implement Ohio's
state-mandated procedural requirements regarding parole.
See Jergens, 492 Fed.Appx. 567 (affirming dismissal
of a § 1983 action based allegations that the OAPA and
individual Parole Board members failed to comply with
state-mandated procedural requirements); Louis v.
Collins, No. 3:08 CV 930, 2008 WL 2705038 at *6 (N. D.
Ohio July 8, 2008) (holding that a prisoner had no viable
federal separations-of-powers claim based on allegations that
the Parole Board placed him in an incorrect offense
foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). The Court further
certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an
appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith.