Barnes v. Spaulding

Filing 24

Judge Richard G. Stearns: ORDER entered granting 17 Motion to Dismiss; granting 17 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; adopting Report and Recommendations re 22 Report and Recommendations. (Zierk, Marsha)

Download PDF
Case 1:19-cv-11745-RGS Document 24 Filed 10/14/20 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS CIVIL ACTION NO. 19-11745-RGS ERIC DERRELL BARNES, Petitioner v. WARDEN SPAULDING, Respondent ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE October 14, 2020 STEARNS, D.J. I agree with Magistrate Judge Dein’s thorough and comprehensive Report, specifically: (1) that petitioner Barnes has not established that he has been deprived of any protected liberty interest; 1 and (2) that even if such a deprivation were shown, the Petition fails to identify any violation of the applicable due process standard.2 Consequently, the Recommendation is As the Magistrate Judge correctly notes, the mere existence of a disciplinary infraction on petitioner’s record does not establish the deprivation of petitioner’s liberty interest where the Parole Commission expressly relied on other factors, e.g., the seriousness of his crime, to refuse to advance Barnes’s early parole release date. 1 As Magistrate Judge Dein notes, the controlling Supreme Court case is Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995), in which the Court announced that 2 Case 1:19-cv-11745-RGS Document 24 Filed 10/14/20 Page 2 of 2 ADOPTED and the petition is DISMISSED with prejudice. Any request for the issuance of a Certificate of Appealability pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 is DENIED, the court seeing no meritorious or substantial basis supporting an appeal.3 The Clerk is instructed to close the case. SO ORDERED. /s/ Richard G. Stearns__________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE it was returning to the due process principles established and applied in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974), and Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215 (1976), namely that liberty interests protected by the Due Process Clause are “generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, . . . nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 483-484. 3 Barnes did not file an objection to the Report and Recommendation. 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?