Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Varner v. Indiana Parole Board Et Al - Document No. 4
Varner v. Indiana Parole Board Et Al - Document No. 4
4
case 3:05-cv-00633-AS-CAN document 4 filed 10/12/2005 page 1 of 2
U.S.C. § 1983. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must review the merits
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief against
a defendant who is immune from such relief. FED . R. CIV . PRO . 12(b)(6) provides
for the dismissal of a complaint, or any portion of a complaint, for failure to state
a claim upon which relief can be granted. Courts apply the same standard under
§ 1915A as when addressing a motion under Rule 12(b)(6). Weiss v. Colley, 230
Dockets.Justia.com
case 3:05-cv-00633-AS-CAN document 4 filed 10/12/2005 page 2 of 2
a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is
entitled to relief. FED . R. CIV . P. 8(a)(2). In reviewing the complaint on
a motion to dismiss, no more is required from plaintiff's allegations
of intent than what would satisfy Rule 8's notice pleading minimum
and Rule 9(b)'s requirement that motive and intent be pleaded
generally.
Alvarado v. Litscher, 267 F.3d 648, 651 (7th Cir. 2001) (citations, quotation marks
Mr. Varner alleges that the Indiana Parole Board, its members and the
governor denied him due process during his parole board hearing. In Indiana, a
prisoner is not entitled to due process during a parole hearing. Averhart v. Tutsie,
618 F.2d 479 (7th Cir. 1980). Mr. Varner received all of the due process to which
he was entitled when he was convicted and sentenced for his crime. Indiana has
IT IS SO ORDERED.
S/ ALLEN SHARP
ALLEN SHARP, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT