Brooks v. Bennett et al, No. 7:2019cv00169 - Document 9 (W.D. Va. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Senior Judge Jackson L. Kiser on 5/23/2019. (slt)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
eL#*#.A *: TD :A 14N:V$ 1 I Iê Li: ,V4A A *;,.g , IN THE UNITED jTATESDISTRICT COURT FO R TH E W ESTERN D ISTRIC T O F W R G INIA R O AN OK E DIV ISIO N MAr 23,2219 JUL BY; CU RT IS R AY BR O O K S DP , Plaintiff, sjas ra w-RK , ' cE CA SE N O .7:19CV 00169 V. M EM O M ND U M O PIN IO N ADRIANNE L.BENNETT,c K , By: H on.Jackson L.K iser SeniorUnited StatesDistrlctJudge Defendants. PlaintiffCurtisRay Brooks,aVirginiainmateproceeding pro % filed a civilcomplaint . plzrsuantto 42U.S.C.j 1983,nnmingtheVirginiaParoleBoard chairperson andthedirectorof the VirginiaDepartmentofCorrections(:$VDOC''). Hisfirstclaim in the caserelatesto past denialsofparole,buthisotherclaim sarelm relatedtoparoleissuesand donotallegeany personal involvementby the only defendantshe hasnamed. The courtconditionally filed the complaint, advisedBrooksthathisclaimswereimproperlyjoinedinasinglecivilaction,inviolationofRules 8,10,18,and 20 ofthe FederalRules ofCivilProcedure,and directed him to file an muended complaintto correctthis deficiency. The courtwnrned Brooks thatfailure to file an amended complaintwithin fourteen dayswould resultin dism issalofhiscomplaint. Brooks has liled no response to the court's order?and his tim ç to do so has elapsed. lnasmuch p, s Brookshas failed to comply with the court's orderwithin the tim e allotted,Iwill dismisslaiscomplaintwithoutprejudice.1 Brooks v. Bennett et al Doc. 9 1 In any event,Brooks'parole claim ,theonly claim involving the named defendants,isw ithout m erit.H eallegesthatthe defendantshave deprived him ofa protected liberty intem stwithoutdue process by denying his request for discretionary parole six tim es for the sam e or sim ilar reasons. A V irginia prisoner'sfederaldue processrightsin paroleconsideration are extremely limited,however. Ifthe parole board furnishesthe prisonerwith a statem entofitsreason orreasons fordenying parole,he has receivéd a11the federal.proceduralprotection to which he isentitled in thatcontext. Franklin v.Shields,569 F.2d 800(4thCir.1978)(#qbanc),aff'ainpartandrev'ginpart,569F.2d784(4thCir.1977),cert.denied,435 Dockets.Justia.com An appropriateorderwi1 be entered. ? ENTERED thi u day ofM ay,2019. ' A d..' E 1OR U N ITED S ATES D ISTM CT JU DG E U.S.1003 (1978). Dueprocessdoesnotrequiretheboardtogive differentreasonsforeach subsequent denialofparole,so long asitprovidesthe inm atew ith itsstatementofthe reason orreasonsfordoing so.
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
