Richard Wershe, Jr. v. Thomas Combs
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 15522
| 6th Cir. | 2014Background
- Wershe was 17 years, 10 months old at arrest for drug offenses and received a life sentence without parole in 1988
- Michigan later declared the LWOP penalty for simple possession unconstitutional; Wershe is now subject to a paroleable life sentence
- 2003 public parole hearing occurred with witnesses for and against parole; the Parole Board voted to withdraw interest in 2003
- 2012 Parole Board issued a notice of intent for a parole review; file review scheduled, then no interview was held
- Board later notified most of its members had no interest in proceeding to a lifer public hearing and postponed action to December 9, 2017
- Wershe filed a 42 U.S.C. §1983 suit against Parole Board members alleging due process and Eighth Amendment violations; district court dismissed sua sponte under PLRA
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Eighth Amendment requires a meaningful parole opportunity for juvenile lifers | Wershe relies on Graham to claim a meaningful opportunity to obtain release | Board argues Graham does not create a liberty interest or required mechanics here | Remanded for Graham-based analysis; not decided yet |
| Whether Michigan parole procedures violated due process | Wershe asserts a protected interest in parole proceedings and a need for explanation when not interviewing | No liberty interest in parole; procedures are state-law governed; no due process entitlement shown | Affirmed dismissal of due-process claim |
| Whether Graham applies to Wershe’s claim given youth at the time of crime | Graham should inform whether juvenile status affects parole process | Graham question is not resolved; court should consider later | Remanded with Graham considerations for Eighth Amendment claim |
| Whether district court properly dismissed sua sponte under PLRA | Dismissal without ruling on Eighth Amendment merits premature | PLRA supports sua sponte dismissal for frivolous or failure to state a claim | Affirmed on due-process claim; Eighth Amendment remanded |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (U.S. 2010) (requires meaningful opportunity to obtain release for juvenile nonhomicide offenders)
- Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74 (U.S. 2005) (prisoner may pursue §1983 if relief does not necessarily shorten confinement)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (U.S. 1973) (writ of habeas corpus for immediate release assertions; §1983 not barred if relief does not shorten confinement)
- Thomas v. Eby, 481 F.3d 434 (6th Cir. 2007) (habeas exception to §1983 applies only when release would be effected by success on the merits)
- Grinter v. Knight, 532 F.3d 567 (6th Cir. 2008) (de novo review of prisoner complaint challenges to conditions of confinement)
- Harbin-Bey v. Rutter, 420 F.3d 571 (6th Cir. 2005) (standard for reviewing prisoner §1983 claims; light on state-law liberty interests)
- Crump v. Lafler, 657 F.3d 393 (6th Cir. 2011) (Michigan parole does not create a federal liberty interest in parole)