Michael v. Ghee

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that there is no fundamental right to parole and that prisoners are not considered a suspect class
• stating that § 1983 is “limited to deprivations of federal statutory and constitutional rights. It does not cover official conduct that allegedly violates state law”
• affirming district court claim dismissals “because 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not provide relief for a violation of state law”
• holding there is no federal constitutional right to parole
• “[T]he state of Ohio has not created a liberty interest in parole eligibility, as it has a completely discretionary parole system.”
• “The relevant inquiry . . . then, is whether retroactive application of the 1998 Ohio Guidelines creates a sufficient risk of increasing the measure of punishment attached to the covered crimes.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).