Brown v. Randle

Dist. Ct. did not err in entering judgment in defendants-prison officials’ favor in plaintiff-sex offender prisoner’s section 1983 action alleging that defendants violated his 4^th Amendment rights by continuing to incarcerate him beyond his release date because plaintiff had refused parole requirement that he wear electronic-monitoring device, and because he had failed to secure residential-location that was in area where he could lawfully live because of his sex offender status. Under Morrisey, 408 US 471, state may rescind parole without hearing as long as it acts prior to when prisoner leaves prison, and no court has held that 4^th Amendment entitled sex offender to be released from prison, even though said individual would likely violate terms of his parole when he left prison due to lack of lawful place to live. Dist. Ct. also properly entered judgment in favor of defendant-warden in plaintiff’s action alleging that warden delayed returning plaintiff to outside medical clinic for diagnosis and treatment of heart condition, where plaintiff failed to contend that warden had anything to do with scheduling him for said treatment.