The opinion
Novosel v . NH Parole Board CV-01-446-B 09/06/02
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE
Victor Novosel
v. Civil No. 01-446-B
Opinion No. 2002 DNH 178
New Hampshire Parole
Board, et a l .
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I grant defendants’ motion for summary judgment for the
following reasons:
1. To the extent that Novosel bases his claims on alleged
changes in his classification status in 1984 and 1997, his claims
are time-barred because he failed to file his habeas corpus
petition within one year of the date that the decisions became
final. See 28 U.S.C. 2241(d) (establishing one year statute of
limitations for habeas corpus claims).
2. In any event, Novosel has failed to state a viable due
process claim based on the alleged changes in his custody status
because state law does not give him a right to any particular
custody status and a change in custody status is not the type of
“atypical and significant hardship” from which a prisoner is
entitled to protection under the due process clause. Sandin v .
Conner, 515 U.S. 4 7 2 , 484 (1995).
3. Novosel’s claim that the Parole Board improperly denied
him parole in violation of his right to substantive due process
fails for several reasons. First, he lacks a protectable liberty
interest in parole. See Stone v . Hamel, CV-91-385-B (March 8 ,
1994) (attached). Therefore, he cannot challenge the Parole
Board’s rulings under the due process clause. Second, he has
produced no evidence to support his claim that the Parole Board
failed to adhere to the laws and regulations governing parole
that were in effect when he committed his offense. Thus, even if
a deviation from these laws and regulations could give rise to a
due process claim, Novosel has failed to identify any persuasive
evidence to support such a claim. Finally, the evidence
demonstrates that the Parole Board reasonably decided to deny him
parole because it appropriately determined that he was not a
suitable candidate for immediate parole given his need to first
spend a significant amount of time at a reduced custody status.
4. Novosel’s equal protection claim fails because he has
not produced enough evidence in support of his claim to permit a
rational fact finder to conclude that either the Department of
-2-
Corrections or the Parole Board intentionally discriminated
against him because of nationality.
The motion for summary judgment (document n o . 14) is
granted.
SO ORDERED.
Paul Barbadoro
Chief Judge
September 6, 2002
cc: Victor Novosel, pro se
Mary Schwarzer, Esq.
-3-