Living Proof Instant Protection
Chiquita Mcnicholas
This leave-in conditioner provides hair with all-day protection from the aging effects of oxidation, free radical damage and UV exposure. Preserves rich hues and vibrancy of salon color while improving manageability, all while leaving the hair softer, too.
This weightless spray is formulated with UV filters and Color Hold technology, creating a veil that helps protect your hair color from the sun. It will instantly add shine and control summer frizz on any hair type.
Tired of dry hair with frizz and split ends? Rejuvenate your hair with our strength and hair damage repair products. Our hair repair products provide instant protection by nourishing damaged strands from the scalp to the end, to support healthy hair. Plus, all of our repairing hair products are made to penetrate the hair shaft and provide instant moisture for softer, more manageable hair. Give your hair the nourishment it needs by adding one of our strengthening hair products to your hair care routine.
Whether you're looking to reverse heat damage, revive chemically damaged hair, repair split ends, or promote hair growth, a deep conditioning treatment is highly recommended to maintain healthy hair. If frizz, split ends, and brittle hair are weighing you down, we can help. Take our hair care quiz to find out which products and hair treatment works best for you. Whether that is a deep conditioning mask, a moisturizing conditioner, or a damaged hair repair treatment, we offer a range of science-backed products to help you fix damanged hair.
When it comes to hair treatments, all of our products have been carefully designed to nourish, strengthen, and support damaged hair right at the source. Each of our cutting-edge products is safe and effective for any hair type. No matter if you have straight, wavy, or curly hair, find evidence-backed hair care products that protect and restore down to the hair cuticle. Apply our restorative hair mask to damp hair for smooth, softer hair straight out of the shower, or apply our blowout concentrate to cut drying time in half while protecting your hair from excess heat damage. If you suffer from heat damaged hair, frizzy hair, lack of moisture, or hair breakage, break the cycle of damage with our hair repair products designed for all hair types.
Rejuvenate your natural hair with our restoring products that repair damage and protect against future hair breakage all without weighing down your strands. Whether you are shopping for a strengthening shampoo, a restorative deep conditioner, or a repair hair mask to combat hair breakage, you can have confidence that you're giving your hair the very best when using Living Proof. We are certified cruelty-free, paraben-free, silicone-free, and our products are safe for color treated hair. We stay true to our motto: We are the science, you are the Living Proof.
This matter comes before the court on the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation that the court grant the respondents' motion to dismiss the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b) (6). The court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the motion should be granted; however, the court relies on different reasoning and authority and therefore declines to adopt the Report and Recommendation. The court treats the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment, as the respondents have presented evidence outside the pleadings with the motion. FED.R.CIV.P. 12(b) (6). The pro se petitioner has responded to the motion, and the matter is now ripe for review.
The facts in this case are not in dispute. The petitioner James Davis beat his girl-friend to death with a steel pipe; he struck her head with the pipe repeatedly and with such force that the pipe actually passed through her head and left a crease in the ground below. Davis was convicted of murder in Lowndes County Circuit Court on November 27, 1990 and sentenced to life imprisonment. On July 25, 2000, the State of Mississippi Parole Board ("the Board") convened and began having hearings; on July 26, 2000 the Board granted the petitioner parole to Alabama pending compact agreement. The Board, as required by statute, had notified, among others, the victim's next of kin, the district attorney, the sheriff and the district judge in the county of conviction. MISS.CODE ANN. 47-7-17, 47-5-177. The district attorney responded to the notice by sending an objection to the parole board opposing the petitioner's parole based upon "the animal ferocity that define[s] this crime," and included three photographs of the victim's body after the attack and another of the deep crease the steel pipe left upon impacting the ground after passing through the victim's head. The Board had not received the district attorney's response at the time of the parole hearing. The Board then acknowledged that it had granted parole based upon incomplete information and on September 18, 2000, rescinded its grant of parole, setting the date for its next consideration of the petitioner's parole eligibility for July 16, 2001.[1] On that date the parole board again considered the petitioner's parole eligibility, determining that he should be next considered for parole in May, 2006, a setoff of five years, because the Board felt that they "would not be able to parole this offender during their term in office." Aggrieved, the petitioner challenged the rescission of parole in the state trial court and the Mississippi Supreme Court[2], but was not afforded relief. On March 4, 2002, James Davis filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging the Mississippi Parole Board's decision to rescind its grant of parole.
The petitioner challenges the rescission of his parole without a hearing after the Board had initially granted parole. In essence, the petitioner claims that he was entitled to due process protection (notice and an opportunity to be heard) prior to the Board's summary reversal of its earlier decision. As will be discussed below, a state prisoner is not entitled to any due process protection regarding the rescission of an initial grant of parole; therefore, the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice.
The action this petitioner challenges must be clearly defined in order to properly frame a discussion of its propriety, as different rules apply to the various actions a parole board may take. The actions of a given parole board fall on a continuum of degrees of liberty at stake against a backdrop of the type of parole statute adopted by the state of incarceration. In Mississippi, the parole statute *619 does not create a liberty interest giving rise to due process protection because the parole board has total discretion to grant or deny parole. Irving v. Thigpen, 732 F.2d 1215, 1217-18 (5th Cir.1984). Thus, a Mississippi state prisoner is not entitled to a hearing to determine whether the Board will grant parole. Id. Against this backdrop, the actions of the Board form a continuum of increasing liberty interests. First, a prisoner who may be eligible for parole, but who has not yet received it, holds the smallest liberty interest, "no more substantial than the inmate's hope ... a hope which is not protected by due process." Greenholtz v. Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 9, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 2105, 60 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1979). Second, a prisoner who has been granted parole, but who has not yet been released (such as the petitioner in the instant case), holds a slightly more substantial liberty interest. In that case, the prisoner clearly has more than mere hope of parole; he has a parole board decision to release him; release on parole is far more certain after such a decision. However, despite the expectation of freedom inherent in the parole board's decision to release, such an expectation does not give rise to a liberty interest protected by due process. Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14, 20-21, 102 S. Ct. 31, 70 L. Ed. 2d 13 (1981). Finally, a prisoner who has been granted parole and is currently living in the community has a liberty interest protected by due process, although not the full panoply of protections enjoyed by free citizens. Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 88 S. Ct. 254, 19 L. Ed. 2d 336 (1967).
Under a statutory scheme like Mississippi's, giving the parole board wide discretion in granting parole, the prisoner has no liberty interest at stake in a possible grant of parole, and due process requirements do not apply. Irving 732 F.2d at 1217-18 (5th Cir.1984). On the other hand, once parole has been granted and the parolee has been released, "there is a human difference between losing what one has and not getting what one wants;" this difference gives rise to a liberty interest worthy of due process protection.[3] The instant case, where the Board has granted parole, but rescinds parole prior to the prisoner's release, falls between these extremes.
Tremarco v. New York State Bd. of Parole, 87 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, 450 N.Y.S.2d 544 (1982) (internal citations omitted). Thus, the Supreme Court has ruled that parolees who have not yet been released do not have the right to a hearing on the rescission of parole. Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14, 20-21, 102 S. Ct. 31, 70 L. Ed. 2d 13 (1981). This rule applies to the present case; the petitioner James Davis was granted parole, but before he was released *620 on parole, the prosecuting attorney provided the Board with photographic evidence of the ferocious nature of James Davis's crime. After looking at the petitioner's file, along with the new evidence, the parole board reconsidered its decision and rescinded the petitioner's parole before he was ever released. Based upon the Supreme Court's decision in Jago, supra, the petitioner was not entitled to a hearing, and the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed with prejudice. A final judgment consistent with this memorandum opinion will issue.
c80f0f1006