Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Quick v. Grace

November 27, 2006

KENNETH QUICK, PETITIONER
v.
JAMES L. GRACE, ET AL., RESPONDENTS.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: William W. Caldwell United States District Judge

Judge Caldwell

MEMORANDUM

I. Introduction

We are considering the pro se petition of Kenneth Quick, an inmate at SCI-Huntingdon, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Quick's petition contends that Respondents, members of the staff at SCI-Huntingdon, intentionally failed to submit Quick's complete institutional file to the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole for its consideration. Specifically, Quick alleges that Respondents failed to include certificates showing his completion of various institutional rehabilitation programs. As a result, Quick claims that his two parole applications were denied based on incomplete information. Quick seeks an order requiring the Parole Board to conduct an additional review of his application using "complete, correct & accurate parole & institutional files."*fn1

We will deny Quick's petition.

II. Background

Quick was convicted of four counts of involuntary deviate sexual intercourse and was sentenced to twenty to forty years' imprisonment. On February 5, 2005, the minimum expiration date for Quick's sentence expired. Quick's maximum sentence will expire on February 5, 2025.

Quick applied for, and was denied, parole in December 2004 and December 2005. In Quick's first parole application, the Parole Board interviewed Quick, reviewed his file, and concluded that it was not in Quick's or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's best interest to grant parole. (doc. 12, ex. A). The Parole Board's Notice of its decision read:

The reasons for the Board's decision include the following:

Your version of the nature and circumstances of the offense(s) committed.

The recommendation made by the Department of Corrections. Your need to participate in and complete additional institutional programs. Your interview with the hearing examiner and/or Board Member. Id. The Notice also detailed items that the Board would consider upon Quick's second parole application:

The Board will review your file and consider: Whether you have successfully completed a treatment program for: Sex Offenders - Phase II.

Whether you have received a favorable recommendation for parole from the Department of Corrections.

Whether you have maintained a clear conduct record and completed the Department of Corrections' Prescriptive Program(s). Id. Approximately one year later in December 2005, the Parole Board denied Quick's second parole ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.