Legal Opinion

Michael v. Ghee

District Court, N.D. Ohio

Decided February 1, 2006No. 3:01 CV 7436PublishedCited by 3 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

ORDER

CARR, District Judge.

These are claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 brought by inmates confined in Ohio penal institutions. Plaintiffs allege the state’s parole system violates the U.S. and Ohio Constitutions, as well as state law.

Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Pending are the State’s motions to dismiss, for summary judgment, and to exclude certain of plaintiffs’ exhibits.

For the following reasons, the State’s motions to dismiss and for summary judgment are granted, and the motions to exclude shall be overruled as moot. 1

Background

Plaintiffs are “old law” inmates who were prosecuted…

2Cases cited30 opinions

  1. Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
  2. Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal & Correctional ComplexSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  3. Kentucky Department of Corrections v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1989
  4. Olim v. WakinekonaSupreme Court of the United States · 1983
  5. Collins v. YoungbloodSupreme Court of the United States · 1990

25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by3 opinions

  1. Michael v. GheeCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit · 2007
  2. Heyward v. CooperDistrict Court, N.D. Ohio · 2022
  3. Wampler v. HandwerkDistrict Court, S.D. Ohio · 2022

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API