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.

Cameron v. Kerestes

United States District Court, Third Circuit

January 16, 2014

RONALD CAMERON, Petitioner,
v.
JOHN KERESTES; PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE; PENNSYLVANIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; and PENNSYLVANIA ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents.

MEMORANDUM

SYLVIA H. RAMBO, District Judge.

I. Introduction

Before the court is a report and recommendation of the magistrate judge to whom this matter was referred in which she recommends that the petition for writ of habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 2254 by Petitioner Ronald Cameron be dismissed. Cameron has filed objections to the report and recommendation and the matter is ripe for disposition. Cameron's ยง 2254 petition claims that the denial by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole of his reparole violated his substantive due process rights. For the reasons set forth below, the court will adopt the report and recommendation of the magistrate judge.

II. Background

In 1994, Cameron was sentenced to a 10 to 20 year term of imprisonment for crimes of delivery of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance and criminal conspiracy. Cameron was eventually paroled on November 4, 2004 but that parole was revoked on or about June 26, 2012 after Cameron tested positive for cocaine. He requested reparole which was denied on June 5, 2013. The reasons for the denial of reparole were as follows:

Your risk and needs assessment indicating your level of risk to the community.
The negative recommendation made by the Department of Corrections.
Your prior unsatisfactory parole supervision history. Your failure to demonstrate motivation for success.
You are to be reviewed in or after December, 2013. At your next interview, the Board will review your file and consider:
Whether you have received a favorable recommendation for parole from the Department of Corrections.

(Doc. 1, P. 26.)

Cameron states that the reasons given are not the basis of the denial of his reparole; that the true reason was that his unit manager had input in this denial; and that he was previously granted parole. Cameron cites as cases in his favor Fuller v. Coleman, 2010 WL 5169 066 (W.D. Pa. 2010), Barnes v. Wenerowicz, 280 F.R.D. 206 (E.D. Pa. 2012).[1]

III. Discussion

In Newman v. Beard, 617 F.3d 775 (3d Cir. 2010), ...


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.