Prison parole and due process
Larry Roosevelt Carter v. Washington
In brief
- Where it stands
- Dismissed
Petition denied.
- What it’s about
- Larry Roosevelt Carter challenges Michigan’s parole process, arguing that broad board discretion and reliance on inaccurate information can deny prisoners fair-process protections after they serve their minimum sentences.
- Who it affects
- The denial ended Carter's request for Supreme Court review but did not resolve his claims about Michigan's parole process.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The case is pending, and no Supreme Court action is identified.
Carter's case concerned the due-process protections available to Michigan prisoners seeking parole after serving their minimum sentences.
Question presented
1. DOES THE GRANTING OF BROAD DISCRETIONARY POWERS TO THE MICHIGAN PAROLE BOARD ENCOURAGE THE STATE OF MICHIGAN TO INFRINGE UPON THE DUE PROCESS RIGHTS OF STATE PRISONERS? 2. DOES MICHIGAN VIOLATE 14TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS PROTECTIONS WHEN IT USES THE PHRASE "NO LIBERTY INTEREST" AGAINST STATE PRISONERS WHO HAVE SERVED THEIR MINIMUM SENTENCES, AND BY VIRTUE OF "GOOD BEHAVIOR" AND A "PAROLABLE" SENTENCE HAVE EARNED A CHANCE AT LIBERTY? 3. IS THE USE OF INACCURATE DATA TO DENY A PRISONER HIS LIBERTY TANTAMOUNT TO FALSE IMPRISONMENT? 4. IS THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO WAREHOUSE STATE PRISONERS FIRST TO DEPRIVE THEM OF THEIR DUE PROCESS RIGHTS (WHICH IS THE NECESSARY INGREDIENT FOR BROAD DISCRETIONARY POWERS TO FLOURISH)? 5. ARE THE COURTS MORE CONCERNED ABOUT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF STATE AUTHORITIES THAN THEY ARE ABOUT PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF STATE CITIZENS?
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
New analysis added
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Show 2 moreShow fewer
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Brief added: Petition
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.