Novosel v. NH Parole Board

2002 DNH 178

• Court: District Court, D. New Hampshire
• Decided: September 6, 2002
• Docket: CV-01-446-B
• Status: Published

Opinion

Novosel v . NH Parole Board CV-01-446-B 09/06/02

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Victor Novosel

v. Civil No. 01-446-B Opinion No. 2002 DNH 178 New Hampshire Parole Board, et a l .

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

I grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment for the

following reasons:

1. To the extent that Novosel bases his claims on alleged

changes in his classification status in 1984 and 1997, his claims

are time-barred because he failed to file his habeas corpus

petition within one year of the date that the decisions became

final. See 28 U.S.C. 2241(d) (establishing one year statute of

limitations for habeas corpus claims).

2. In any event, Novosel has failed to state a viable due

process claim based on the alleged changes in his custody status

because state law does not give him a right to any particular

custody status and a change in custody status is not the type of

“atypical and significant hardship” from which a prisoner is entitled to protection under the due process clause. Sandin v .

Conner, 515 U.S. 4 7 2 , 484 (1995).

3. Novosel’s claim that the Parole Board improperly denied

him parole in violation of his right to substantive due process

fails for several reasons. First, he lacks a protectable liberty

interest in parole. See Stone v . Hamel, CV-91-385-B (March 8 ,

1994) (attached). Therefore, he cannot challenge the Parole

Board’s rulings under the due process clause. Second, he has

produced no evidence to support his claim that the Parole Board

failed to adhere to the laws and regulations governing parole

that were in effect when he committed his offense. Thus, even if

a deviation from these laws and regulations could give rise to a

due process claim, Novosel has failed to identify any persuasive

evidence to support such a claim. Finally, the evidence

demonstrates that the Parole Board reasonably decided to deny him

parole because it appropriately determined that he was not a

suitable candidate for immediate parole given his need to first

spend a significant amount of time at a reduced custody status.

4. Novosel’s equal protection claim fails because he has

not produced enough evidence in support of his claim to permit a

rational fact finder to conclude that either the Department of

-2- Corrections or the Parole Board intentionally discriminated

against him because of nationality.

The motion for summary judgment (document n o . 14) is

granted.

SO ORDERED.

Paul Barbadoro Chief Judge September 6, 2002

cc: Victor Novosel, pro se Mary Schwarzer, Esq.

-3-