Parole Board claim in Michigan

2022The appropriate vehicle in which to seek redress of the alleged wrong done by the parole board is a claim for relief under 42 USC 1983 filed against the parole board.”), citing Wershe v Combs, 763 F3d 500 (CA 6, 2014). 55 These statistics rebut defendant’s argument that the Parole Board currently employs a “life means life” policy. 56 Michigan Department of Corrections, Parole Process, PD 06.05.104 (April 1, 2022), p 3, ¶ N, available at <https://perma.cc/T345-7QLN>. 57 Id., ¶ O. 58 Ante at 11. 23 parolable life sentence actually receive parole.

2022The appropriate vehicle in which to seek redress of the alleged wrong done by the parole board is a claim for relief under 42 USC 1983 filed against the parole board.”), citing Wershe v Combs, 763 F3d 500 (CA 6, 2014). 55 These statistics rebut defendant’s argument that the Parole Board currently employs a “life means life” policy. 56 Michigan Department of Corrections, Parole Process, PD 06.05.104 (April 1, 2022), p 3, ¶ N, available at <https://perma.cc/T345-7QLN>. 57 Id., ¶ O. 58 Ante at 11. 23 parolable life sentence actually receive parole.

1969On this right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and noting that if he were in the custody of the parole board such hearing by statute must be held within 30 days, MOLA § 791.240 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28-.2310), 2 we find the reasoning behind the recent United States Supreme Court case of Smith v. Hooey (1969), 393 US 374 ( 89 S Ct 575 , 21 L Ed 2d 607 ) which was concerned with constitutional right to speedy trial, most persuasive.

1969On this right to a hearing within a reasonable time, and noting that if he were in the custody of the parole board such hearing by statute must be held within 30 days, MOLA § 791.240 (Stat Ann 1954 Rev § 28-.2310), 2 we find the reasoning behind the recent United States Supreme Court case of Smith v. Hooey (1969), 393 US 374 ( 89 S Ct 575 , 21 L Ed 2d 607 ) which was concerned with constitutional right to speedy trial, most persuasive.

2019See Wershe v Combs, 763 F 3d 500 (CA 6, 2014) (indicating that a § 1983 action was the appropriate vehicle to challenge a change in the procedures used to determine whether a defendant is eligible for parole); Greiman v Hodges, 79 F Supp 3d 933 (SD Iowa, 2015) (denying parole board’s motion to dismiss the juvenile offender’s § 1983 action alleging that parole procedures denied him a meaningful opportunity to obtain release); Hayden v Keller, 134 F Supp 3d 1000 (ED NC, 2015) (juvenile offender prevailed in § 1983 motion alleging that North Carolina parole process denied him a meaningful opportu