Tedder v. Francke, 90-35491

• Decision Date: 04 April 1991
• Docket Number: No. 90-35491,90-35491
• Parties: Unpublished Disposition NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Norman E. TEDDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael FRANCKE, Manfred Maass, Theodore Long, Staff Social Service Staff of O.S.P. Unknown, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 897

931 F.2d 897

Unpublished Disposition

NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.

Norman E. TEDDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Michael FRANCKE, Manfred Maass, Theodore Long, Staff Social

Service Staff of O.S.P. Unknown, et al.,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 90-35491.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted April 4, 1991. ^*

Decided April 24, 1991.

Before EUGENE A. WRIGHT, GOODWIN and SKOPIL, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM ^**

This is a pro se appeal by an Oregon state prisoner. His civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 was dismissed by summary judgment when the district judge approved the findings and recommendation of a magistrate judge.

Tedder was sentenced to a term of years for sex offenses. He has served about 10 years of his sentence and sought in this action a recommendation from prison officials to the Board of Parole for early release and a 20% reduction in his term. Our de novo review of the summary judgment requires that we determine whether there are genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relative substantive law. Ashton v. Cory, 780 F.2d 816, 818 (9th Cir.1986).

Tedder raises these issues:

(1) Was there error in finding that Tedder has no liberty interest in receiving a recommendation for a reduction in his prison term?

(2) Was Tedder's right against self-incrimination violated by the prison's requirement that he participate in a sex offender program as a precondition for recommendation for a reduction in his prison term?

(3) Did prison officials conspire to violate Tedder's civil rights?

(4) Was the reduction of the prison term denied in retaliation for Tedder's filing other civil rights actions?

For the Board of Parole to consider an inmate's request for early release, the inmate must receive a positive recommendation from the institution. Tedder does not challenge the Board of Parole's refusal to grant him a reduction in sentence. Instead he challenges the failure of prison officials to issue a favorable recommendation to the Board.

Tedder has no constitutional or inherent right to be conditionally released before the expiration of his valid sentence. Bergen v. Spaulding, 881 F.2d 719, 721 (9th Cir.1989).

Applicable state administrative rules with reference to reductions in prison terms provide:

(a) In accordance with OAR 255-40-025, institution superintendents may recommend parole release date reductions in those cases where an inmate has completed a 5-year period of good conduct and has made demonstrable achievement in dealing with problems present at the time of incarceration.

(b) Self-improvement programs and achievements:

(A) Demonstrable achievements dealing with problems present at the time of incarceration and associated with criminal conduct: the following criteria shall be used to determine if the inmate has made demonstrable achievement:

(i) The inmate should have participated in one or more self-improvement programs appropriate to their need as determined by social services staff (to the extent these programs are available to the inmate) and this participation should have resulted in favorable reports.

Or.Admin.R. 291-44-015(1) (1988).

It is...