Debra Jenner v. Kay Nikolas, 828 F.3d 713

Debra Jenner was convicted of second-degree murder in 1988 and originally sentenced to life without parole; in 2002 her sentence was commuted to 100 years, making her eligible for parole.
Board member Sheridan, who participated in Jenner's criminal investigation, recused himself from parole proceedings but allegedly placed 26 graphic photographs of the victim in Jenner’s parole file.
Jenner repeatedly was denied parole after hearings in which the photographs were available; she sought removal of the photographs administratively and via the South Dakota Supreme Court, which denied her mandamus petition.
The Board’s executive director later removed many photographs but retained those from the state attorney general to assist consideration of the offense.
Jenner sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming the photographs and lack of an effective conflict-of-interest policy deprived her of a right to an unbiased, impartial parole tribunal.
The district court granted the Board members’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim; the Eighth Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Jenner has a federal liberty interest in parole	Jenner: her statutory right to a parole hearing (old SD law) supports a protected liberty interest	Board: no federal constitutional right to parole; state statute does not create a liberty interest here	Held: No protected federal liberty interest in parole exists
Whether statutory right to a parole hearing creates a protected liberty interest	Jenner: the hearing right implies a right to an unbiased, impartial tribunal	Board: a procedural statute alone does not create a substantive liberty interest	Held: Statutory hearing right is procedural and not a constitutionally protected liberty interest
Whether lack of an impartial tribunal violated due process	Jenner: presence of biased/recused member’s photos deprived her of impartial review	Board: due process protections attach only if a protected interest exists; none here	Held: No due process violation because there is no underlying protected interest to be deprived
Whether a conflict-of-interest policy deficiency gives rise to § 1983 liability	Jenner: systemic conflict rules would vindicate impartial-hearing rights	Board: absence of a protected liberty interest defeats § 1983 claim	Held: Claim fails for same reason—no constitutionally protected interest to trigger due process

Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (state parole does not create federal right to be released before sentence ends)
Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (no constitutional right to parole)
Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (procedural rules alone do not create protected liberty interests)
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (protected liberty interests limited to atypical, significant hardships)
Conn. Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458 (underlying substantive right must exist to trigger due process)
Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (need for neutral and detached hearing body when liberty interest exists)
Withrow v. Larkin, 421 U.S. 35 (importance of unbiased decisionmaker to prevent probability of unfairness)
Glasgow v. Nebraska, 819 F.3d 436 (standard of de novo review of dismissal)