Washington v. Timekeeper NDOC, 2:24-cv-01000

Plaintiff Joseph Washington, incarcerated by the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), filed a § 1983 civil rights complaint.
Washington sued Timekeeper NDOC and Warden Bean, alleging events at High Desert State Prison (HDSP).
He claimed defendants failed to apply earned good-time credits to his minimum sentence, delaying his parole eligibility contrary to NRS 209.4465.
Plaintiff claimed this deprivation amounted to a violation of his constitutional due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court screened the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, which requires dismissal if the complaint is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim.
Court found that Plaintiff's only claim was not legally cognizable and gave leave to amend the complaint for other potential claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Due process violation for failure to apply credits	Defendants denied him due process by not applying credits	No liberty interest in parole/credits	No colorable due process claim; failure to apply credits is state law, not constitutional

West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42 (1988) (defining the requirements for state action in § 1983 claims)
Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696 (9th Cir. 1990) (pro se pleadings are liberally construed)
Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216 (2011) (no federal due process right to parole)
Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5 (1980) (pro se complaints must be held to less stringent standards)
Morley v. Walker, 175 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 1999) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is proper only if no facts entitle plaintiff to relief)
Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989) (frivolous prisoner complaints may be dismissed sua sponte)