Petition — Ross v. Byrd

| | RECEIVED |

~

NuY g 1978

OFFiCe UF The CLikK

IN THE SUPREME COURT, U.S.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITD STATES

ERM, 1978

"7B ~ 56938

DANTZL ROSS, “" Petitioner,

Ve

KAY BY2D, individually and in hés person

and official capacity as Case Analyst of

the State of North Carolina Yarole Commission;

JiMES €. WOODARD, individually and in his

person and official capacity es Chairman of

the Stete of North Carolina Parole Commission, Respondents.

PSTITION FOR WRIWS OF CERTIORARI To TSE

UNITED S'TATSS C URT OF APPEALS FoR THE

FOURTH CIRCUIT AT RICHNOND NO. 78-6373

( Formerly Misc. NO. /8-8296)

Frankliré County Prison

Post Uffice Box 155_

Bunn, North Carolina 27508

ee oo --

et em eR ROE IE

INDEX

Declaratiyn to sue as a Pauper.

Petition for Writs of Certiorari

Opinion below

Jurisdiction

Question Present

Constitutional Privison Involved

Sitatement of the Case

Reasons for Granting the Writs

Conclusion

Certificate of Service

Childs v. United States Board of Parole, 511 F2d 127u (D.C.Cir. 1974)

United States ex rel. Johnson v. Chairman, 5CO F2d 925 (Ca2 1974)

King v. United States, 492 F2d 1337 (CA7 1974)

Birdwell w. Ciccone, 490 F2d 310 (CAS 1973)

Cooley vs Sigler, 381 F2d Supp 441 (D. Minn 1974)

Franklin v. Shields, 399 F. Supp 309 (W.D. Va. 1975)

Bradford. v. Weinstein, 519 F2d /28 (CA4 1974}, vacated as moort,

96 SCt 347 (1975)

Grattan:v. Sigler, 525 F2d 329 (CA9 1975)

Robeinson v. United State Board of Parole, 403 F Supp 638 (W.D.NY. 1975) ---------

Kohlan v. Norton, 380 F Supp 1073, 1075 (D. Comm. 1974)

Calabra v. United States Board of Parole, 525 F2d@ 660 (CA5 1975)

Manos v. United States Board of Parole, 399 F Supp 1103 (M.D. PA. 19/5

Fisher v. United States, 382 F Supp 241 (D. Conn 1974)

Rothmau v. Director U. S. Board of Parole, 403 F Supp 188 (N.D. GA. 19/5) --------

Leonard v. Mississippi Parole Board, 3/3 F Supp 699 (N.D. Miss 19/4)

Bradfo:rd v. Weinstein, supra.

Scott . Kentucky,Parole Board, 197 S Ct 342 (1976) -

‘Jd

s

ait CO 8 © a2 2 YV wee 2 eS eS

~

6 RARE at

IN THE

RECEIVED )

SUPREME COURT OBUTHs UNITED S'TATE

THM, 1978 MY 8 1978

OFFICE OF THE CLERK

- SUPREME COURT, U.S.

HO. j

DANIEL RUSS, vr & = 56 9 a TIONER,

Ve

KAYE BYRD, individually and in her person

and official capacity as Case Analyst of

the State of North Carolina Parcle Commission;

JAMES C. WOCDARD, individually and in his

person and official capacity as Chairman of

tie State af North Carolina Parole Commission, Respondents.

DECLARATION 10 SUE AS A PAUPS3IS

I, DANIEL ROSS, declare under the penality of perjury that I am the Petitioner

im this matter and have a good cause of action against the respondents and desire

to bring such action in this Court; that I am unable to give bond or make the deposit

required ty law to enable me to begin said action, That I am unemployed. The date of

last employment was two years ago. That I have not received with the post twelve months

any money from any cf the following sources: business, profession or from self-employment;

rent payments, interest or dividends; pensions, annuties or life insurance payments;

gifts or inheritance, or any other scurces, ‘That I do not own any cash, or have money

in a chaciting or saving account. That I do not own any cash, or have money in a checking

or saving account. ‘That I own no real estate, stocks, bonds, notes, automobiles, or other

valuable property. ‘hat this cause of action has been properly exhausted in the courts

below,

WHSREYORE, petitioner prays the Court that an order may issue forthwith allowing him

to bring said action as a pauper withcut laches, This the 4+--day of November, 1978

ee ee

RECEIVED

IN THE fioy g 1978 OPINION BTLOW

SUPR@M® COURT OF TH® UNITED STATES = |ogpice OF THE CLERK On October 16, 1978, the United States Court of Appeals for

TERM, 1978 SUPREME COURT, U.<. the Fourth Circuit for the reasons stated in the United States

District Court’s order dated July 6, 197% affirmed said order

NO. es = 5$ 9 3 filed July 7, 1978 sua sponte dismissing the complaint in Ross v.

Byrd, et al., C/A NO. 78-0172 (2D. Ne Co, July 7,1978)«

Betitioner, JURISDICTION

The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DANI™L ROSS,

Ve

KAYE BYRD,individually and in her person was entered on October 16, 1978, and this petition for certiorari

t s Cas lyst of .

oe bebe sige | Pie Ps. Sitete Etaplentna’ was fined within 90 days of that date. This Courtts jurisdiction

" e WOO individually and in his

het A Wraehit csi - ean of is invoked ander Rules 12(3), Rule 19 and 28 USC 1651(a).

Pa ’ Respondents.

the State of North Carolina Parole Commission, 2) QUESTION PRUS@NTED

HAS THE UNITED STAT™S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

pg Be agg Say IN ic gocpegan Ve aa ae hee oe —9)1378)

TO Tit UNIT™D STATES COURT OF APPEALS CRT ( %.D.i.C.) AND IN CONFLICT WITH TH? D3CIOION OF THS SUCOND,

FOR TH™ FOURTH CIRCUIT AT RICHMOND SEVENTH, WIGHTH AND D. C. COURT OF APFTALS ON THES SANZ MATT™R;

NO. 78-6373 (Formerly Misc. NO. 78-8296) OR HAS DSCIDED AN IMPORTANT QUUSTION OF FSDERAL LAW WHICH HAS

NOT BUTN, BUT SHOULD BY, S@2TL"D BY THIS COURT. IF SO, DOTS THE

DUE PROC%SS CLAUSE OF THT FOURTTSKTH AMENDITNT HAV? ANY APPLI-

CATION TO THS CONDUCT OF PROCTEDING BY A PAROLZ BOARD IN oTAT™S

WHERE PAROLS IS NOT MANDATORY BUT IS GUARANTS7D To TVSRY

PRISONER A RUVIEW AND CONSTDGRATION OF Ris CASE UPON ITS MPRITS

AND THD PRISONER DUSIRING ACC3S. TO THT INFORMATION IN HIS PAROL™

FILE ASUTRTING THAT SOM OF THT FACTS FOUND THSRTIN ART TRRONTOUS,

CONSTITUTIONALIY B% DENTSD ACUSSS AND WOTICS OF TNT3NTION TO SO

| ,als for the Fourth Circuit entered CLASSIFY TOCTTHER WITH FACTUAL DATA UPON WHICH TH? BOARD BULI=V2S

aeons eaves Sheen Leet eee en SUCH CLASSIFICATION APPROPRIATS NO LATER THAN THY IN PRISON IN

16, 1978, and that this Honorable Court RVIGW WHEN IT WOULD BE A GRIZVOUS L@os FOR A PRISONER BY RUASON

in this proceeding on October 16, 1978, a OF A COMPLETELY EX PART@ PROCTYDIKG, AND THD RSoULTING IWCRTASTD

OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMITTING BRROR, TO BY DINITD PAROLE AND RU-

; QUIRED. TO S=RVE WORT OF HIS TERM’BECAUS THT ATTENTION OF THE

» the petitioner lack the legal PAROL™ BOARD WAS NOT CALL™D TO DATA TSLDING TO INDICATS THAT

. pleadings drafted by lawyers because the pe PAROLY SHOULD BS GHANTSD, OR FOR A PRISONGR WHOSE INCARCERATION

£ to extent as lawyers. No HAS AS IT ULTIMATS OBJECTIVE THS PRIS ONSR'S REHABILITATION TO FAIL

expertise including access to facilities to a TO KNOW, LST ALON UNDTRSTAND, WHY PAROLE Is DENTZD HIM AND H™NCE

PetitionerDaniel Ross, a state prisoner, respectfully prays.

that writs of certiorari issue to review the judgment and opinion

will treat the pro se petition to less strengent standards than formal

e 's indigency and lack of a copy- WHAT CHANGSS IN ATTITUD™, HABITS, AKD Th> LIKS WILL BE RUQUIRED

ee ee eee ent IF HE IS SVuR - BE SUCCESSFUL IX OBTAINING PAROLE, UNL TS 9 OF

COURSS, THURE FOUND TO BE SOMS COMPELLING STATS INTREST IN WHY

ing machine at the present place of confinement, the Franklin County ng SRR 18 FOURD 70 A ;

Prison Unit Law Library to redress this Honorable Court. -2=

pinpvinnsiontgnenineetaib es --~

STATTMENT OF THT CALE

Petitioner Daniel Ross, filed a civil rights action in the

United States District Court for the Sastern District of North

Carolina, secking monetary relief together with injunction and

a declaration with regard to certain practices and procedures

of the Worth Carolina Parole Board to grant or to deny access to

information in his parole file. Jurisdiction was found upon 28

USC 1343(3),(4) and 42 USC 1983.

court to mandatorily prohibit, via injunction, the respondents,

The petitioner asked the district

Kaye Byrd, among the North Carolina Parole Board, from similar acts

and omissions in order to deter respondent from, in the future,

refusing an failing to furnish access to information in parole

files no later than his in prison interview in August, 1978, and;

an opportunity to explain or rebut evidence and to present an af-

firmative case in order that he might receive every possible

consideration of parole - was fatal since the state had created the

right to consideration of parole, the deprivation of that right may

well be a grievous loss. That anything less, makes the review no

more than a Sham when by reaSon of a completely ex parte proceeding,

and the resulting increased opportunity for committing error, to

be denied parole and required to serve more of his term because the

attention of the Parole Board was not called to data tending to in-

dicate that parolé should be granted, or for a prisoner whoSe ob-

jective incarceration has as its ultimate objective the prisoner's

rehabilitation to fail to know, let alone understand, why parole is

denied him and hence what changes in attituded, habits, and the like

will be required if he is ever to be successful in obtaining parole,

unless, of course, there is found to be some compelling state interest

in why he should not be advised.

elie

|

paises ee ee a —

j

{

i

‘

|

need Rn en Be

Petitioner made no claim thet he was entited to immediate relnase,

Nor did he claim that he has a right to parole so that he would be

released prior to the full service of his sentence less whatever

credits the State of North Carolina may grant him. Petitioner makes

no Claim that he has the right to inquire into the internal functioning

of the parole board or the adjudicatory processes by which paroles

are granted or denied. The sole thrust of petitionerts complaint is

a constitutional attack upon the procedures of the reSpectivé parole

board. ‘Tire substantive question is not the right to parole but the

right tw procedural due process in the doleheurebiaa of parole.

Despite this important constitutional question, on July 7, 1978, the

district court dismissed the complaint Sue Sponte holding that an

en bane Fourth Circuit having held that there is no constitutional

right af access to the information in petitionerts parole file,

Franklin v. Shields, _F2d (1978), which order was affirmed on

October 16, 1978 by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth

Circuit for the reasons stated in Ross Ve Byrd, NO. 78-317-CRT (E.D.

N.C. July 7, 1978)

CONSTITUTIONAL P2OVISION INVOLVED

1. ™. . « nor Shall any state deprive any person of life,

liberty, or property, without due process of lawe « « o®

2. ™" 148-58. Time of eligibility of prisoners to have cases

considered. *** All prisoners shall be eligible to have their cases

considered for parole when they have served a Fourth of their Sentence,

if their sentence is determinate, and a Fourth of their minimum sen-

tence, if their sentence is indetermine; provided, that any prisoner

Serving sentence for life shall be eligible for such consideration

=

when he has served 20 years of his sentence, Nothing in this section

Shal] be construed as making mandatory the reliease of any prisoner

on parole, but shall be construed as only guaranteeing to every

prisoner a review and consideration of his case upon its merits.

(1935, Ce hth, Se 8; 1955, Co 867, Se 5; 1973, Ce 1201, Se 5). At

all times relevant hereto, NORTH CAROLINA GENEKAL STATUT™S 1148-58

has been fully operative.

REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRITS

THE UNITSD STATES COURT OF AFPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT HAS

RENDERED A DECISION IN FRANKLIN v. SHISLDS, _ F2d (1978) AS OPPOSED

TO JULY 7, 1978 TO WIT ROSS v. BYRD, NO. 78=317=— CRT (5.D.N.C.) AND

IN CONFLICT WITH THS DECISION OF THE SECOND, SEVENTH, SIGHTH AND D.

C. COURT OF APPSAIS ON THE SAME MATTER; OR HAS DECID=D AN IMPORTANT

QUESTIOG OF FSDSRAL IAW WHICH HAS NOT BEEN, BUT SHOULD BS, SETTLED BY

THIS COURT. THE DEDISION BELOW IS ERRONEOUS IN THAT THS DUE PROCESS

CLAUS® OF THS FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT HAVE SOME APPLICATION TO THD CONDUCT

OF PROCSEDING BY A PAROLS BOARD IN STATES WHURS PAROLE IS NOT MANDATORY

BUT IS GUARANTS"D TO EVERY PRISONER A REVIEW AND CONSIDSRATION OF HIS

CASS UPON ITS MSRITS AND THD PRISONER DESIRING ACCESS TO THE INFOR-

MATION IN HIS PAROLE FILE ASOSRTING THAT SOM® OF THE FACTS FOUND THEREIN

ARE BRRONSOUS, CANNOT CONSTITUTIONALLY BE DENIED ACCES. AND NOTICE OF

INTENTION TO SO CIASSIFY TOGSTHER WITH FACTUAL DATA UPON WHICH THE

BOARD BSLIS VES SUCH CLASSIFICATION APPROPRIATE NO LATER THAN TH® IN

PRISON INTERVIEW WHEN IT WOULD BS A GRIEVOUS LOSS FOR A PRISONER BY

REASON OF A COMPLETELY EX PARTE PROCSEDING, AND THE RUSULTILG INCRTASED

OPPORTUNITY FOR COMMITTING ERROR, TO BE DENIED PAROLE AND REQUIRED TO

SERVE M@EFS OF HIS TERM BECAUST THE ATTENTION OF THE PAROLE BOARD WAS

-5-

Oe ee ee et eee eee

NOT CALL™D TO DATA TSNDING Tu INDICATE THAT PAROLE “SHOULD BE GRANTED,

OR FOR A PRISONER WHOSE INCARCERATION HAS AS IT ULTIMATE OBJSCTIVT

fH® PRISONER'S REHABILITATION To FAIL TO KNOW, LET ALONE UNDURSTAND,

WHY PAROL® Iu DENIED HIM AND HENCE WHAT CHANGES IN ATTITUDSS, HABITS,

AND TH? LIKE WILL BB REQUIRED IF HE IS EVSR To BS SUCCESSFUL IW

OBTAINING PAROLE, UNLESS, OR COURSE, THERE IS FOUND To BE » OME

COMPSLLENG STATE INTSREST IN WHY H® SHOULD NOT BE ADVISED. The

Farst significant case holding that due process attached to parole

hearings was Childs v. United States Board of Parole, 511 F2d 1270

(D. C. A. 1974), where the court Stated:

"THE BOARD HOLDS TH® KEY To THE LOCK OF THE PRISON.

IT POSSESS%S TH? POWSR To GRANT OR TO DENY CONDITIONAL

LIBSRTY . . . THE RUSULT oF THE BOARD'S BXSRCIS" oF ITS

DISCRETION IS THAT AN APPLICANT BITHSR SUFFERS A "GRIEVOUS

LOSS' OR GAINS A CONDITIONAL LIBERTY. HIS INTEREST

ACCORDINGLY IS SUBSTENTIAL. WE THINK IT FOLLOWS THAT THE

PAROLE DSCISION MUST BR GUIDED BY MINIMAL STANDARDS OF

DUT PROC%SS OF LAW. . & wo y

Since Childs, most courts faced with the issue have héld that a

prisoner is entitled to some due process Safeguards in the parole

hearing stage. The particularly due process protections discussed

by the courts unually involve (1) meaningful reasons for the denial

(2)

information to be considered by the board and an opportunity to rebut

of parole, access by the prisoner to his or her files or to

erroneous information, (3) comprehensive explanatory guideliness for

prisoners with respect to the rules and procedures, (4) representation

by counsel or an advisor and; (5) an opportunity for the prisoner to

present an affirmative case for parole; e.g., See United States ex rel.

Johnson v. Chairman, 500 F2d 953 (CA2 1974); vacated as moot, 419 US

1015 (1974); Childs v. U. S. Board of Parole, supra; King v. United

States, 492 F2d 13137 (CA7 1974); Birdwell v. Ciccone, 490 F2d 310

(CA8 1973),

-6~

G

The importance of this due process Safeguard was amplified in

Cooley v. Sigler, 381 F Supp 41 (D. Minn, 197L), the court held

that, aS a general rule, due process requires that a parole applicant

be given access to the information and files which are to be considered

by the Board in ruling on parole. This dedision was based on the

Court's concern that files can contin erroneous information which,

wnkess prisoner have an opportunity to review it, Can be used to deny

him parole. And the Grattan v. Sigler, 525 F2d 329 (CA9 1975) court

held that the prisoner must be given data upon which reclassification

af offense severity rating is based prior to hearing and afforded

epportunity to explain or rebut evidences The rationale that a parole

applicant he given access to the information and files are based on

the trend that most prisons prepare progress reports on prisoners to

be submitted to the Parole Board wherein the prisoner's activities

within the prison and detailed, e. g., jobs, attitudes, disciplinary

reports and participation in various prison programs. Also included

in those reports are criminal records, paSt convictions, fanily ties,

martial status, employment records, etc. Generally case workers pre-

pare those reports based upon information contained in prisoner's

central file. Prior to submission of reports to the parole board in

the Federal System, the prisoner is suprosed to sign it, showing that

he has read and agree with the contents thereof, to ascertain it accuz-

If the prisoner find mistakes or erroneous information in his

acye ay

in his parole file he can call it to the attention of the caseworke

or other person preparing his report so he cau correct it. Cf. Rob-

tnson v. United States Board of Parole, 4.03 F Supp 638 (W.D.N.Y. 1975);

Kohlman v. Norton, 380 F Supp 1073, 1075 (D. Conn, 1974) (Both of those

dealt with erroneous information in parole file and required new hear-

aie

ings because of it.

’

Gr a ge ne

However, it the Spring of 1976 Congress enacted into law the "Parole

Commission andReorganization Act."

219, Pub, L. 94-233),

18 USC s/s/201 et Seqe (90 Stat.

Under this new Act are Many rights which

represent, for the most Part, a codification of many federal court

decisions, For example, See Title 18 United States Code Section

4208. n) youkre not entitled, under the Act, to have access. to

diagnostic Opinion which, if made known vo you, could lead to a

Serious; disruption of the prison program, any document which ree

veals sources of information obtained upon a promise of confident-

iality; or any other information which, if disclosed, might result _

in havm, physical or otherwise, to any person, If the Commission

or the Bureau of Prisons denies you access to an

listed above, however, it must at least provide you with a summary

of the basic contents of the material withheld and furnish you with a

Copy of the summaries before your parole hearing, p) a full and

complete record of every proceeding must be kept by the Commission

and upon request the Commission :iust make this record available to you;

and q) if you are denied parole a Conference is set up between you

and the Commission, or the examiners thereof, to explain the reasons

why you were denied, This conference include advice to you as to what

Steps you might take to enhance your chances of making parole at your

next hearing, 18 USC 4208. Unlike the Federal Parole System the State

of North Carolina Parole System does not provide caseworkers but instead,

CaSe analysts, Prior to Submission of pregress reports to the North

Carolina Parole Board in the State prison System, the poor prisoner is

not siown reports based upon information contained in his central file,

He is not given the opportunity to Yead and agree with the contents thereo:

=f.

ne

If there be mistakes or erroneous informstion in his parole file he

Cannot call it to the attention of the case analyst or other person

preparing his report so he can correct it. He is not provided with

slip dp ANd i 3

a Summary withheld, or furnished with a copy of the summaries before

his parole hearing. Cf. 18 USC 4208 There is no available remedy

tt» request a full and complete record of every proceeding and the

North Caro)ina Parole Board does not make these available to its

prisoners. If you are denied parole no conference is setup between

you and the: Parole Board, or the examiners thereof, to explain the

reason why you were denied and no one tell you what steps you might

take to enhance your chances of making parole at your next hearing.

Infact, the prisoner is not examined,

nit Tot Han cit Tae a Tea eS SSPE

BSCAUSS THT PRISONSR'S INTSR"ST IS T2 HELP HIvS"LF PREPARS FOR

CONSIDTRATION OF PAROLS OR CONT NTION THAT RELATTS ‘'0 CONSIDERATION

OR TH? APPLICATION Or FAIRNUSS,

Furnishing uncovered facts, documents and relevant information avout

his parole status that will help him present a complete picture to the

board. It would aid the Parole Board to narrow and clarify the issue

whether to grant or to deny parole, and be accurate rather than in-

accurate, and to discover pertinent facts in making a discriminatory

decision as well as an impartial one, Access would substantially

lessen, if not, eliminate, much of the element of surpise which no

doubt, would turn out long drawn grievances by redressing out courts

te lh a :

while simaltaneously increasing our prisons' population presumeably

on a national scale. BeSides it cannot be said with precision that

the request for information in a parole file is irrelevant or unreasonole.

ee

One of the big advantages of access to information in his parole files

is that it allows the parole board to avoid rehearings where remain

a possibility that adverse collateral consequences would inure to the

board by a court decreeing petite | This therefore would minimize

* ee

—

attempts of prisoners and ease court actions, Furnishin-= accass

effectively will let the prisoner know, let alone understand, why

parole is denied him and hence what Changes in attitudes, habits,

and the like will be required if he is ever to be Successful in

obtaining parole,

For example, in Calabro y. United Board of Parole,

—3iadro —— sito Parole

535 F2d 660 (CGa5 1975), the court held that factual errors in the

parole file are not prejudicial where the prisoner had provided the

Parole board with his own Statement of the factual data at the parole

hearing,

Manos _v. United States Board of Parole, 399 F Supp 1103

(M-D.Pa. 1975), held that if the parole toard takes the offense for

which the prisoner is in prison into Corsideration, e, &-, if they

designate him as an "organized crime” person , he must be informed of

this in order tot prepared to refute any erroneous information, And,

in Fisher vy. bnitag States, 382 F Supp 21 (p. Conn. 1974) , the court

held that a prisoner was not entitled to full access to his file

Parole, See also, Rothman v. Director United States Board of Parole,

403 F Supp 188 (N. D. Ga, 1975 )e

ACCESS TO INFORMATION IN HIS PARULE FILE CANNOT BS CONSILERED CPPRES IVE

OR OBJCTIUNABLE SIMPLY BECAUSE THIS MAY CAUSE IRS PAROLE BOARD WURK °

RESERRCH OR EXPENSE. NOR IS ACCESS OBJ2CTIUWABLE BECAUSE Es $~_k LNFURMA .ION

GUARANTESD TU HIM A REVIEW AND CONSIUERATION uf HIS UWN CASE URUN ITS MERITS,

Executive privilege is disproportionate and unreasonable justifications for denying

the prisoner access to information in his parole file when interest of both the

Parole Board and the prisoner is guaranteed review and consideration fully operative

By North Cerolina General Statutes 148-58, Considering the probability of undue

turden or expense by providing prisoners access to information in their parole files,

Mm the absence of fairness, consideration is non-existence, When weighed against

‘the inconvenience to the state, justifies the application of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment. Because reports bdcomes part of the prisoner's personal files, affecting

10_

numerous Classification and parole decisions to be made about him. Indeed, it may

follow him throughout prison system, ‘The board holds the key to the lock of the

prison. It possesses the power to grent or to deny conditional iiberty, ‘the result

of the board's exercise of its discretion is that an ap,licant suffers a grievous

loss or gains a conditional liberty, I1f the board's decision were based on an

errommous description of the ccnduct underlying an offense as in_Kohian v. Norton,

36H # Supp 1073 (D. Conn. 1974); or on the basis of an illegal disciplinary pro-

cemding as in Leoward v. Missipvi Parole Board, 373 F Supp 699 (N.D. Miss 1974) but

which the prisomer is denied access to information in his file and, an opportuni ty

to rebut evidence erroneous, He is denied parole anew each time his record is used

agpinst him, See Bradford v, Weinstein, 514 F2d 728 (4th Cir. 1974), vacated as

moot, 423 US 147 (1975) that must be preceeded by cue process Scott v, Kentucky

Parole Board, 197 S Ct 342 (19/6).

Sorth Corolina Parole Criteria 5 NC AC 4C Policy, Review and Investigation .16Uo.

The commission, however, does reserve the right to review disciplinary actions

and put its own evaluation on the seriousness of the infrantion as this relates to

parole consideration.

CONCLUSLUN

Petitioner, Deniel Ross, submits that the Franklin v. Shields' case unlike

the Ross v. Byrd's case, while somewhat analogus, is inapposite, but in any event,

an important question of Federal Law which has not becn, but snculd be, settled by

this Court since in conflict with the decision of the Second, Seventh, Eighth and

D. C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Accordingly, this Honorable Court Ex Mero Motu,

should so declare, and decide the importent federal question,

Respectfully submitted,

DANIEL ROSS

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HERE®Y CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing P#''!TION FOR WRITS UF CERTIORARI

was deposited in the United States Mail postaze prepaid, addressed to Honorable Rufus

L. Edmisten, Attorney General for the State of North Caroling Honorable Jacob L.

Safron, Special Yeputy Attorney General Department of <u

Raleigh, North Carolina 2/002,

=34

cern aan ee

en

a rs ee

‘ RECEIVED

Y Hea rie

$s SUPREME COURT, U.S,

\y

SS

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 78-6449

(Formerly Misc. No. 78-8296)

Daniel Ross,

Appellant,

Vv.

Kaye Byrd, individually and in her person

and official capacity as Case Analyst of

the State of North Carolina Parole Commission;

James C. Woodard, individually and in his

person and official capacity as Chairman of

the State of North Carolina Parole Commission,

Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. F. T. Dupree, Jr.,

District Judge.

Submitted: September 21, 1978 Decided: October 16, 1978

Before FIELD, Senior Circuit Judge, WIDENER and HALL, Circuit

Judges.

(Daniel Ross, Appellant Pro Se; Richard N. League, Assistant

Attorney General, counsel for the Appellees.)

PER CURIAM:

A review of the record and of the district court's

opinion discloses that this appeal from the order of the

district court denying relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is

without merit. Accordingly, although leave to proceed in

forma pauperis is granted, the order is affirmed for the

reasons stated by the district court. Ross v. Byrd,

No. 78-317-CRT (E.D.N.C., July ve 1978) .

a6 NS ee EO kb wee oS

eer at

es

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FI LE D

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RALEIGH DIVISION ieee

JUL 71978

/ YOHN R. WHITTY, CLERK

U. S. DISTAiST COURT

E. DIST. NO. CAR.

no. 7% 3/7--2T

DANIEL ROSS,

Plaintiff

vs.

KAYE BYRD, etc., THE STATE

OF NORFH CARCLINA PAROLE COMMISSION

etc., et al.,

er ee ee ee ee ees es te ee

Defendants

Plaintiff in this civil rights action desires access to the infor-

mation in his parole file, asserting that some of the facts found therein

are erroneous. An en banc Fourth Circuit having held that there is no

constitutional right to such information, Franklin v. Shields, F.2d

i (1978), the complaint fails to state a claim.

Accordingly, the motion to proceed in forma pauperis is allowed

but the action is dismissed. I

Aa

P. T. DUPREE, JR.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

July 6, 1978.

ter

rue Copy, tet

.- g. snitty, Clore

li tan

wr Deputy Clare