Hunter v. Florida Parole & Probation Commission, 81-5536

Decision Date30 April 1982
Docket NumberNo. 81-5536,81-5536
Citation674 F.2d 847
PartiesJohnny HUNTER, Petitioner, v. FLORIDA PAROLE & PROBATION COMMISSION, Respondent. Non-Argument Calendar.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

Bruce Sperry, Jacksonville, Fla. (Court-appointed), for petitioner.

Malcolm S. Greenfield, Fla. Parole & Probation Commission, Tallahassee, Fla., for respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

Before GODBOLD, Chief Judge, JOHNSON and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The appellant, Johnny Hunter, filed a pro se petition for the writ of habeas corpus, 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254, in which he contended that the Florida Parole and Probation Commission violated his right to due process by improperly calculating his presumptive parole release date. Acting upon a recommendation of the magistrate, the district court dismissed the action for the reason that the Florida parole statutes create no constitutionally protected liberty interest.

The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies when government action deprives a person of liberty or property. Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 7, 99 S.Ct. 2100, 2103, 60 L.Ed.2d 668 (1979). While there is no inherent or constitutional right to conditional release before the expiration of a valid sentence, a state may create a protectible liberty interest in the establishment of a parole system. Id. at 12, 99 S.Ct. at 2106. The former Fifth Circuit has held, however, that no liberty interest in parole was created by the Florida statutes. Staton v. Wainwright, 665 F.2d 686 (5th Cir. 1982). We agree.

Accordingly, we hold that the petition was properly dismissed as there was no deprivation of a federally protected right.

AFFIRMED.

To continue reading

Request your trial
27 cases
  • AMERICAN FED. OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES v. US
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia
    • December 21, 1984
    ...that he possesses a property or liberty interest protected by the fifth or fourteenth amendments. See Hunter v. Florida Parole & Probation Comm'n, 674 F.2d 847, 848 (11th Cir.1982). Plaintiff then must show that the state or federal government deprived him of the liberty or property interes......
  • Brown v. Dillard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • April 20, 2016
    ...the time required under the parole laws. The analysis in Staton was adopted by the Eleventh Circuit in Hunter v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 674 F.2d 847 (11th Cir. 1982), where the court held that no due process violation could be shown through an allegation that the Florida P......
  • Foster v. Dillard
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • April 12, 2016
    ...the time required under the parole laws. The analysis in Staton was adopted by the Eleventh Circuit in Hunter v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 674 F.2d 847 (11th Cir. 1982), where the court held that no due process violation could be shown through an allegation that the Florida P......
  • Broadnax v. Wynne, CASE NO. 2:11-CV-1082-WKW [WO]
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • January 26, 2015
    ...the time required under the parole laws. The analysis in Staton was adopted by the Eleventh Circuit in Hunter v. Florida Parole and Probation Commission, 674 F.2d 847 (11th Cir. 1982), where the court held that no due process violation could be shown through an allegation that the Florida P......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT