With no substantive limit on Adult Paroles' discretion and no constitutional right to parole, a prisoner may not challenge any procedure used to deny him parole or extend his parole release date. Kampii v. Ghee (March 14, 2000, 6th Cir.), No. 99-3459, unreported; Hatti v. Goldhart (1994), 69 Ohio St. 3d 123. Because a prisoner has no constitutional or statutory right of parole, he has no similar right to an earlier consideration of parole. Vaughn v. Ohio Adult Parole Authority (1999), 85 Ohio St. 3d 378. Moreover, parole guidelines are not subject to declaratory judgment. Nobles v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. and Co. (December 5, 2000), Franklin App. No. 00AP-200, unreported; Wise v. Ohio Dept. of Rehab. & Corr. (1992), 84 Ohio App. 3d 11. Moreover the same issues were raised and dismissed in Franklin County Court of Common Pleas Stewart v. Adult Parole Authority (January 3, 2001), Franklin C.P. Case No. OOCVH 10-8476, unreported; Davis v. Margarette T. Ghee February 5, 2001) Franklin C.P. OOCVA 07-678d1, unreported. Collectively, the cases hold that because the guidelines are neither created by statute or regulation, they confer no substantive right. Olim v. Wakinekona (1983), 461 U.S. 238.