Moore v. Laughlin et al

Filing 9

ORDER denying as moot 5 Motion to Expedite; adopting 6 Report and Recommendations; denying 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Therefore, this action is dismissed and closed. Signed by Judge Dudley H. Bowen on 12/3/15. (cmr)

r'',rlrnii\l11 |

t'l{iilii\"{L

DISTRICTCOTIRT
STATES
IN TI{E LD'IITED
DISTRTCT GEORGI,{
OF
FORTHESOUTF{ERN

i-i;_f
L l . S . . , l l i T i TC
iii
I
] . : , ' i , i $l f ifi l )OUR
i, tv.

z0t5 -3 AH
oEC

DLIBLINDTVISIOI.{
DAVTD TIMOftry IVIOORL"
Petitioner.

cv 315-069
WARDENVANCELAUGHLIN,and
AND
BOARDOF PARDONS
GEORGIA
PAROLES,
Respondents"

O RDER

After a careful, de novo review of the file, the Court concurs rvith the N{agistrate
to
Judge'sReportand Recommendation, which objectionshavebeenfiled (doc. no. 8). The
petition because doesnot seekcr
it
dismissalof the hatreas
MagistrateJudgerecommended
release,and Petitioner's three-strikerstatus preventet{hirn from bringing the
necessitate
release
and rvasbrought
claims under $ 1983. Petitionernow objectsthat his petition seeks
petition. (Doc. no. 8.)
properlyas a habeas
he
are
Petitioner'sclaims for release conditionalbecause is only claiming entitlement
by
to
if
to release he meetsthe criteriahe seeks be established the GeorgiaBoard ofPardon
and Paroles. (Doc. no. 1-2, pp. 13-14.) In light of Petitioner'sclaims that there essentially
Fetitioner's
are no criteria for the ParoleRoard to tbliow in making parole determinations,
claim for releasecan only he viewed as ancillary to his demandsthai the Paroie Board

establishsometype of criteria for making their determinations.(Seeid") Indeed,Peiitioner
pursuantto
that will be established
the
demandsreleaseif he o'meets criteria for relea.se
subparagraphs c, & d above." (I<! at 14.) Thus, Petitioner's claim is not that he is
a,
unlarvfully confined becausehe meets the criteria for parole. See 28 U.S.C. 5 2254G).
if
Rather,his claim is that he may be entitledto release he meetsthe criteriato be established
in the future by the Parole Board.
must show a constitutional
Even consideringthe rnerits of the petition, Petitierner
violationto obtainrelief under28 U.S.C.$ 2254. Toornav. FloridaParoleComm'n,612F.
Supp. 2d 1255, 1259(S.D. Fla. 2009) affd sub nom. Tooma v. David, 381 F. dpp'x 977
(1lth Cir. 2010). Petitionerbrings three types of claims in his habeaspetition: procedural
claims,equalprotectionclaims,and Eighth Amendmentclaims. (Doc. no. 1-2'
due pr<icess
pp. 6-12.) Petitionercamot statea claim underthe Due Process
Clausein GroundsTrvo and
parole legislation does not establisha liberfy interest in parole.
Five becauseGecrrgia's
v.
Sultenfuss Snow, 35 F.3d 1494, 1502(1lth Cir. 1994). Petitionercannotstatea claim
andEight because
beingdeniedparoleis
underthe Eight Amendmentin GroundsSix, Seven.
a "mere disappointment" rather than cruel and unusual punishment. Slakman v. Buckner,
434 F. App'x 872.875 (i lth Cir. 2011).
Finally, Petitionercannotstatea claim underthe Equal ProtectionClausein Grounds
Clne, Three, and Four becausehe does not allege discriminatory treatmentbased on a
protected
interest. Id. at 876. GroundsOne andThreesimply rehash due
his
constitutionally
process
claims that the ParoleBoar<J failed to establish
has
appropriate
criteria,and Ground

Four alleges a distinction made by the Parole Board among those serving determinateand
indeterminate
a
sentences, distinction that is not constitutionallyprotected. SeQSweet v.
(1lth Cir.2006).
F.3d1311,
1319
Sec'y.
Dep't Corr.,46'1
of
of
Accordingly,the Court ADOPTS the Reportand Recommendation the lvlagistrate
to
IFP (doc. no. 2.), DENIES AS
Iudge as its opinion,IIENIES Petitioner'srequest proceed
MOOT Petitioner's rnotion for an expeditedruling (doc. no. 5.). and DISMISSES this
action.
4'

thisffi
SOORDERED

ft

l/

2015. Augusta,
at
of December.
Georgia.