Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Mitchell Lavern Ludy, Petitioner v. James W. Mills, et al.

■ 1®=I

9

0

18 2019

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

A'-kUfl

— PETITIONER

(Your Name)

RESPONDENT(S)

ON PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO

l

t/.i?. CoUr\of AopzJ.r £la.vzn^l O',lire al

(NAME OF COURT TH

LAST RULED ON MERITS OF YOUR CASE)

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

MJ-AJI LX *IZ3?3?6

(Your Name)

'

AiL'l't'v

(Address

M

fr-ifoH

f

dLYy\

GA 31771

(City, State, Zip Code)

(Pnone Number)

*> •

Vn

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED

II

t

Qj

z-o'rjpd phi$&ft(L)rs

l&Y'

Z/ i^f'4'L' i )\\ °~r ; J- la djro I ~<l

7

ff \\\^ O'^oM 1 d. f dtolz, 0p<s’d4~6

vveul V d$ rv\Af\

iT'f'd'i'*

/

/

awy

fre^o Qt.it

Z'f'J'

i

dll

4-

T

•2-1 If i pi h'^y

'pot

dki ry u

#4 4

VHI

E

ctroL

iy

/f off >T ^

LIST OF PARTIES

[ ] All parties appear in the caption of the case on the cover page.

parties do not appear in the caption of the case on the cover page. A list of

all parties to the proceeding in the court whose judgment is the subject of this

petition is as follows:

£■ pdirn^s

JdCf U-Z\s

N\i)l T

3)^1 dh Ow^ft-r

/

/X

TABLE OF CONTENTS

OPINIONS BELOW

1

JURISDICTION

z

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

3

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

f

.5

6

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT

CONCLUSION

INDEX TO APPENDICES

f (l.$. ZWr~f of Aj>f> Ij'

0/) „f U-SOou)

APPENDIX A

peclflOJl

APPENDIX B

P&C \

0

APPENDIX C

APPENDIX D

APPENDIX E

APPENDIX F

X

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CITED

CASES

PAGE NUMBER

iwl .f

f

^3S9

Qr^eJlhoi'i'z- v- j/&lrdfkdJLl'lf-2-

Su W’thfusr v. $h»\y 35F-2\tf7?

I

f

STATUTES AND RULES

f

0. c. &.A.S Hl-t-V-S

OTHER

f

X!

IN THE

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

Petitioner respectfully prays that a writ of certiorari issue to review the judgment below.

OPINIONS BELOW

iV^For cases from federal courts:

The opinion of the United States court of appeals appears at Appendix

the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

IVf is unpublished.

The opinion of the United States district court appears at Appendix

the petition and is

to

[ ] reported at

5 or,

[VK"has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The opinion of the highest state court to review the merits appears at

Appendix_____ to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

5 or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

The opinion of the_

appears at Appendix

court

to the petition and is

[ ] reported at

; or,

[ ] has been designated for publication but is not yet reported; or,

[ ] is unpublished.

1.

JURISDICTION

For cases from federal courts:

The date on which the United States Court of Appeals decided my case

was 7Tu

__2*5, ILoty

[ ] No petition for rehearing was timely filed in my case.

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was denied by the United States Court of

Appeals on the following date: ____________

and a copy of the

order denying rehearing appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including______

(date) on

(date)

in Application No. __ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1254(1).

[ ] For cases from state courts:

The date on which the highest state court decided my case was

A copy of that decision appears at Appendix_______

[ ] A timely petition for rehearing was thereafter denied on the following date:

--------------------------------- , and a copy of the order denying rehearing

appears at Appendix

[ ] An extension of time to file the petition for a writ of certiorari was granted

to and including____

(date) on

(date) in

Application No. __ A

The jurisdiction of this Court is invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1257(a).

Z.

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED

a

O.C.G.AJ

7>ft

j^<2-Q W

*f fdrl oh<r Ah 1 /a^U^J sIaH

C<?>1

<*/i

-foh p

/Vi (f-fofe «wll. ' •

^

e.r<ro/i f l;-F^ I;M**e XTr/r

0

frvl 'I’li o w'V

\ u®- p v~0c ^s &T fA w■>

3.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

In excess of thirty (30) years ago, the Georgia Legislature mandated by

statute, O.C.G.A. 42-9-45(a), that the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles

shall include an eligibility requirement for parole in their rules and

regulations. As of today’s late date, the appellees have not complied with

said legislative mandate. As a result, the appellant is suffering irreparable

harm and being denied due process of law because he does not know what is

required of him to make parole. Without knowing what is required of him to

make parole, Appellant will never be able to leave prison on parole, which

effectively transforms and upgrades the appellant’s parolable life sentence

to a sentence of life imprisonment without possibility of parole. Only by the

appellees including an eligibility requirement for parole in their rules and

regulations will this egregious and unconstitutional situation be rectified.

Specifically, the appellant alleges that if the appellees do not include an

eligibility requirement for parole in their rules and regulations, Appellant

will never possess a liberty interest in parole, and the appellees will

continue to have unfettered discretion to deny parole for any reason or no

reason at all. The inclusion of an eligibility requirement for parole in the

rules and regulations of the Georgia parole board by the appellees would

create the same type of protected liberty interest in parole as found in

Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442

U.S. 1 (1979); and Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987). See,

also, Sultenfuss v. Snow, 35 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir. 1994) (dissenting

opinion by Circuit Judge CARNES).

As such, the Georgia Board of Pardons and Paroles (the appellees)

would have a set criteria for obtaining parole and, thus, their parole

decisions would not be arbitrary and discretionary by law. In summation,

Appellant submits that an eligibility requirement for parole would demand

and require that a prisoner, such as Appellant, accomplish something to

merit parole and, that if he does so accomplish that something, he would

then possess a reasonable expectation of being granted parole, to wit: a

liberty interest in parole protected by the Due Process Clause.

‘t.

<3

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

Certiorari review should be granted in this case because of the

state and national importance of granting a liberty interest in parole

to all of Georgia’s prisoners, save those with death sentences or life

without parole sentence, as such will create a fair and objective

mechanism for parole, a mechanism which heretofore never existed

in the State of Georgia.

5.

I;

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

Date:

Sej>‘'e-lnle-r /#.

L

if