Anthony McClendon El v. Heidi Washington
Split Score
What is a Split Score?
This score (0-100) indicates how likely this case is to be reviewed by the Supreme Court based on:
Case Summary
Disposition
Affirmed
The Sixth Circuit held that a Michigan prisoner convicted of third-degree criminal sexual conduct has no protected liberty interest in avoiding a recommended sex-offender treatment program or in receiving parole under Michigan’s discretionary parole system. Because he failed to identify any cognizable liberty interest, his Fourteenth Amendment due-process claim was properly dismissed, and the district court’s judgment was affirmed.
Circuit Split Identified
Legal Issue
Whether a prisoner who has NOT been convicted of a sex offense nonetheless possesses a liberty interest (protected by the Fourteenth Amendment) in avoiding mandatory participation in a sex-offender treatment program when completion of the program is imposed as a condition of parole under a discretionary parole regime.
Circuit Positions
No liberty interest exists in avoiding a sex-offender program requirement under a discretionary parole regime, regardless of whether the inmate has a prior sex-offense conviction.
Inmates who have never been convicted of a sex offense possess a liberty interest that requires due process before they may be compelled to enter a sex-offender program as a condition of parole or another benefit.
Declines to decide the issue; finds it unnecessary to resolve the split in the present case involving an inmate previously convicted of a sex offense.
Conflict Summary
The Seventh Circuit holds that, in a discretionary parole system, no protected liberty interest exists in avoiding a sex-offender program requirement, even for inmates never convicted of a sex offense. In contrast, the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Eleventh Circuits recognize that inmates without a sex-offense conviction do have a constitutionally rooted liberty interest that entitles them to due-process protections before being compelled to enter such a program. The Sixth Circuit, in this opinion, expressly declines to decide the question.