Richard Wershe, Jr. v. Thomas Combs

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “where the relief sought is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, the prisoner must pursue relief through a writ of habeas corpus, not through § 1983.”
• remanding for consideration of the plaintiffs claim that a state's parole procedures violated the Eighth Amendment, in light of Graham v. Florida
• affirming district court’s dismissal of due 3 process claim arising from Michigan Parole Board’s actions in sending the prisoner an interview notice, but not conducting the interview nor explaining why it was not held, because the prisoner had no liberty interest in parole
• The Sixth Circuit has held that to state a due process claim, a plaintiff “must allege that a protected property or liberty interest was violated.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).