Vanhoose v. O'Dea
| Citation | 19 F.3d 1435 |
| Decision Date | 25 March 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. 93-6399,93-6399 |
| Parties | NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit. Roger VANHOOSE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Michael O'DEA, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. |
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit) |
Before: JONES, NORRIS, and DAUGHTREY, Circuit Judges.
Roger Vanhoose, a Kentucky prisoner proceeding without benefit of counsel, appeals a district court order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2254. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).
Vanhoose was convicted on October 23, 1979, of rape and armed robbery. He was paroled on December 7, 1987. His conditions of parole were that he attend a comprehensive care center or other treatment center and that he was prohibited from associating with convicted felons, possession of firearms, and the use of alcohol.
Vanhoose violated the conditions of his parole and was returned to prison. In his petition for habeas relief, he argued that his constitutional rights were violated by the imposition of an unconstitutional condition of parole. The essence of his argument was that conditioning his parole on abstinence from alcohol is a constitutional violation in light of his uncontrollable compulsion to drink.
The case was submitted to a magistrate judge who concluded that it was not a violation of petitioner's constitutional rights for the Kentucky Parole Board to require as a condition of parole granted to an alcoholic that he abstain from drinking. The district court adopted the magistrate judge's report and recommendation as the opinion of the court. Vanhoose appealed. On appeal, Vanhoose argues that he was denied due process of law by the district court's failure to order discovery of the file used by the Kentucky State Parole Board in paroling him. Secondly, Vanhoose argues that the district court's factual findings are in error and reasserts that imposing a condition of sobriety on an alcoholic is unconstitutional.
Upon review, we find no error. Petitioner's first argument on appeal is that the district court denied him due process of law by denying his discovery motion. The power to regulate discovery practice within the parameters set by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is within the sound discretion of the district court. Accordingly, the standard of appellate review is for abuse of discretion. Tarleton v. Meharry Medical College, 717 F.2d 1523, 1535 (6th Cir.1983).
The district court did not abuse its...
To continue reading
Request your trial