He also wanted the court to tell Corrections chief executive Ray Smith to give him home leave, day parole, release to work and one-on-one counselling or alternatively, release him because his detention was arbitrary.
The High Court at Christchurch heard Ericson was first eligible for parole in 2009. But he was declined parole that year and the following year, when the Parole Board said he was not "in the reintegration phase of his sentence".
Disgruntled, in 2013 Ericson "ventilated a more general concern" about prison bosses thwarting his chances of getting parole, Justice Rachel Dunningham said in a newly-released judgement.
Ericson said Corrections was required to grant him temporary releases, including release on the "release to work" or RTW programme but had failed to do so.
Ericson also said Corrections had breached its duty to provide him with rehabilitation programmes, especially psychological treatment.
"I'd be surprised to get a one-on-one counselling session within the next two years," he told the court.
The convicted murderer said for as long as he was denied access to such programmes, his detention was arbitrary.
But his argument hit a snag, Justice Dunningham said.
"Mr Ericson appears to be under a misunderstanding that he has an absolute entitlement to temporary release, including to undertake RTW."
As Mr Smith said in his submission, no such entitlement existed and Justice Dunningham said Ericson's history was concerning.
"His index offending is very serious. He has not received psychological treatment addressing the causes of his offending, which he continues to deny criminal responsibility for. He has escaped from prison and he has at times refused work both inside and outside the prison wire."
In 2007, he spent 26 hours on the run after escaping from a Wellington Prison work party.
Ericson suggested he was in a "Catch-22". He said the Parole Board wanted him to finish programmes to address his offending before he could be deemed eligible for parole, but the department failed to to provide him with such programmes because his risk was deemed too low.
"If they don't give us the courses, we are stuck here," Ericson told the court.
Mr Smith said the law did not impose a duty to give Ericson psychological treatment as a matter of priority.
Rather, such treatment followed an assessment of available resources, and considerations of who would most benefit from those programmes.
Justice Dunningham said some rehab programmes were being offered to Ericson but he, after discussions with Corrections staff, decided some options weren't appropriate.
Justice Dunningham said Ericson's failure to take "criminal responsibility" for the murder and his erratic response to work schemes or rehabilitative overtures meant his argument of arbitrary detention did not stack up.
"His detention is in accordance with a life sentence imposed by a sentencing judge. The department has provided him with such rehabilitative programmes as are available and considered suitable for Mr Ericson's particular needs..."
She said Ericson had not shown that any Corrections decisions relating to him were outside its statutory powers and discretions, and his application was rejected.
Figures released this month showed more prisoners, in relative and absolute terms, were taking part in the RTW programme before murderer and paedophile Philip John Smith's escape caused the programme's temporary suspension.
The Corrections figures, released to law student Liam Stoneley under the Official Information Act, showed 608 prisoners were on the RTW scheme in the 2009/10 financial year. But in the 2013/14 financial year, 806 prisoners - 9.9 per cent of all inmates - were on the programme.
Corrections told Mr Stoneley the RTW scheme could be a "highly effective stepping stone" in prisoner rehabilitation. The programme involved external agencies employing prisoners.
