The plaintiffs seek neither to reverse a prior denial of parole nor to require a future grant. Rather, they want what they contend would be a fairer consideration of their candidacy for parole. This outcome would not result in a judgment that "would necessarily imply the invalidity [of their] conviction[s] or sentence[s]." See Heck ....
The plaintiffs' claims are rejected because there is no liberty interest in parole release under the Constitution or the Massachusetts parole statute. No First Amendment or equal protection claim was raised concerning the refusal to let prisoners' families and friends speak at parole hearings. See: Lynch v. Hubbard, 47 F.Supp.2d 125 (D.Mass. 1999).
As a digital subscriber to Prison Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.
Already a subscriber? Login
Related legal case
Lynch v. Hubbard
|Cite||47 F.Supp.2d 125 (D.Mass. 1999)|