Skip navigation
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

No Liberty Interest in Judicially Ordered Work Release

The plaintiff did not have a liberty interest in staying on work release,
since his placement on work release was part of his criminal sentence, and
the sentencing judge made the decision to remove him from work release. At
631: "Altering that condition did not render the remaining provisions of
McGoue's sentence illegal. . . . As the period of confinement remained
consistent with the legal sentence and did not otherwise violate the
Constitution, plaintiff has no liberty interest deprived [sic] from the Due
Process clause." Nor is there a state-created liberty interest, since
revocation "did not impose anything upon plaintiff outside of the ordinary
incidents of prison life. An inmate, after being convicted of a crime, may
reasonably expect to encounter a situation where he must remain in prison
at all times, rather than travelling to a job each day." While this
implies that the plaintiff was living in the prison and leaving only to
work, the court never makes that explicit. See: McGoue v. Janecka, 211
F.Supp.2d 627 (E.D.Pa. 2002).

As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login