Willie Crenshaw v. Robert Parratt

Eighth Circuit

Willie Crenshaw v. Robert Parratt

698 F.2d 360, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31055

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

DecidedJanuary 26, 1983

Docket82-1400

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 698 F.2d 360 (Willie Crenshaw v. Robert Parratt) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Willie Crenshaw v. Robert Parratt, 698 F.2d 360, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31055 (8th Cir. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

698 F.2d 360, 1983 U.S. App. LEXIS 31055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/willie-crenshaw-v-robert-parratt-ca8-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack