The opinion of the court was delivered by: Judge Caldwell
We are considering the pro se petition of Michael Porter, an inmate at SCI-Huntingdon, for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. His contends that the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ("Parole Board") and the staff at SCI-Huntingdon have hindered his attempts to obtain parole and are attempting to use incriminating statements against him. Specifically, Porter claims that the Parole Board and prison staff have violated his constitutional rights by: (1) forcing him to believe that he must complete sex offender treatment before he can participate in the parole release program, and refusing to acknowledge that he has already completed the program in which they want him to participate; (2) coercing him into making incriminating statements in order to be released on parole and refusing to acknowledge that he made the statements; and (3) failing to adequately review his case and leaving him open to further prosecution by coercing him into making false incriminating statements. He is seeking immediate release on parole or immediate review by the parole board. Porter also requests that his sex offender statement be expunged.
In March of 1995, Petitioner was sentenced by the Washington County Court to nine and one-half to nineteen years imprisonment on charges of rape and unlawful restraint.*fn1 (Doc. 11, Ex. 1, ¶ 26). He was re-sentenced on January 31, 1997, to eight and one-half to seventeen years. (Id.). The minimum expiration date for his sentence was December 20, 2002, and the maximum expiration date is June 20, 2011. (Id. at ¶ 27).
Porter has been considered for parole twice by the Parole Board. In its November 4, 2002, decision, the Board denied parole and determined that Petitioner's parole eligibility would be reviewed in or after September 2004. (Id. at Attachment C). The notice explaining the Board's decision stated:
Following an interview with you and a review of your file, the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole has determined that the fair administration of justice cannot be achieved through your release on parole. You are therefore refused parole and order to: Be reviewed in or after September, 2004.
At your next interview, the Board will review your file and consider: whether you have successfully completed a treatment program for: sex offenders, core group and batterer's intervention; whether you have received a favorable recommendation for parole from the Department of Corrections; whether you have received a clear conduct record and completed the Department of Corrections' prescriptive program(s). (Id.).
Petitioner was again denied parole on October 7, 2004, and his eligibility was set to be reviewed in or after September 2005. (Id. at Attachment D). The notice of Porter's parole denial states that:
Following an interview with you and a review of your file, and having considered all matters required pursuant to the Parole Act of 1941, as amended, 61 P.S. § 331.1 et seq., the Board of Probation and Parole, in the exercise of its discretion, has determined at this time that: your best interests do not justify or require you being paroled/reparoled; and, the interests of the Commonwealth will be injured if you were paroled/reparoled. Therefore, you are refused parole/reparole at this time. The reasons for the Board's decision include the following: Your version of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed; the recommendation by the Department of Corrections; Your unacceptable compliance with the prescribed institutional programs; your need to participate in and complete additional institutional programs; your interview with the Hearing Examiner and/or Board member.
You will be reviewed in or after September, 2005.
At your next interview, the Board will review your file and consider: whether you have participated in/successfully completed a treatment program for: sex offenders and batterer's group; whether you have received/maintained a favorable recommendation for parole from the Department of Corrections; whether you have received/maintained a clear conduct record and completed the Department of Corrections prescriptive program(s). (Id.).
In between his parole reviews, Porter did participate in sex offender treatment and a batterer's intervention group. The sex offender treatment program required him to take responsibility for his "sexually offensive behavior." (Doc. 11, Ex. 2, ¶ 18). Despite this requirement, Porter continued to deny responsibility of his actions while participating in the batterer's group. (Id. at Attachment E). The institutional records reflect that at the time of his second parole evaluation, ...