FRANK PAUL RILEY, PETITIONER-APPELLANT,
v.
E. P. PERINI, SUPERINTENDENT, MARION CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, RESPONDENT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Federal courts may only review state parole board actions for constitutional violations, not for abuse of discretion.
Petitioner sought habeas corpus, alleging the Ohio Adult Parole Authority improperly considered his criminal record when denying parole. The District …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Parole Board Discretion cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM
and ORDER. Petitioner applied for a writ of habeas corpus in the District Court claiming that the Ohio Adult Parole Authority, in denying parole to him, took into account his criminal record.
The District Judge, in considering the habeas corpus application, interpreted our decision in Rose v. Haskins, 388 F. 2d 91 (6th Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 392 U.S. 946, 88 S.Ct. 2300, 20 L.Ed.2d 1408, as conferring authority upon him to review the action of the Ohio Adult Parole Authority to determine whether, in denying parole to the prisoner, the Authority abused its discretion. In our opinion, Rose is not susceptible of any such interpretation.
Federal Courts have jurisdiction to review the action of state parole boards only where it involves violation of the Constitution of the United States. Hinkle v. Adult Parole Authority, 419 F. 2d 130 (6th Cir. 1969); MacKenna v. Avery, 404 F. 2d 71 (6th Cir. 1968); Rose v. Haskins, supra.
In determining the application of a prisoner for parole, the Parole Authority may consider all relevant factors, including the prisoner’s criminal record. Jones v. Salisbury, Sup’t., 422 F. 2d 1326 (No. 19,569) (6th Cir. 1970); cf. Rose v. Haskins, 21 Ohio St.2d 94, 255 N.E. 2d 260 (1970).
It is therefore-ordered that the judgment of the District Court be and it is hereby affirmed.
Entered by order of the Court.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Scarpa v. U. S. Bd. OF Parole, 477 F.2d 278 (5th Cir. 1973)
-
Scarpa v. U. S. Bd. OF Parole, 468 F.2d 31 (5th Cir. 1972)
-
Roach v. Bd. OF Pardons & Paroles, 503 F.2d 1367 (8th Cir. 1974)
Authorities Cited
- Rose v. Haskins, 388 F.2d 91 (6th Cir. 1968)
- Bailey v. United States, 392 U.S. 946 (U.S. 1968)
- Gregory v. Warden, Leavenworth Penitentiary, 392 U.S. 946 (U.S. 1968)
- Arlie Jones v. Salisbury, 422 F.2d 1326 (6th Cir. 1970)
- Hinkle v. Ohio Parole Auth., 419 F.2d 130 (6th Cir. 1969)
- Nat'l Labor Relations Bd. v. Quality Prod. Co., 404 F.2d 71 (6th Cir. 1968)