United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
RICHARD P. CONABOY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Parker, an inmate at the State Correctional Institution,
Frackville, Pennsylvania (SCI-Frackville) filed this pro
se petition for writ of habeas corpus. Service of the
petition and supporting memorandum were previously ordered.
was convicted of possession with intent to deliver a
controlled substance in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks
County, Pennsylvania. On July 25, 2008, Petitioner was
sentenced to a two (2) year, (3) month to ten (10) year of
confinement as a result of that conviction. Petitioner
indicates that he did not pursue a direct appeal.
February 9, 2011, Parker was granted parole by the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (Parole Board). By
decision dated October 14, 2011, the Parole Board recommitted
Parker as a technical parole violator for violating a
condition of his parole. Specifically, it was determined that
Petitioner had failed to successfully complete the ADAPPT
decision dated March 23, 2013 Petitioner was denied reparole
based upon multiple factors. See Doc. 6-1, p. 11.
Specifically, the Parole Board cited the following grounds: a
risks and needs assessment found that Parker posed a risk to
the community if released; a negative recommendation by the
Department of Corrections (DOC); the inmate's prior
unsatisfactory parole supervision history; Parker's
failure to demonstrate motivation for success; and the
prisoner's refusal to accept responsibility for his
April 12, 2013 Parole Board decision denied Petitioner's
second reparole application. See id. at p. 14. This
unfavorable determination again noted Parker's poor
parole supervision history; minimization of his criminal
conduct, and that a risk and needs assessment determined that
he pose a risk to the community. On March 9, 2015, Parker was
denied reparole for a third time. See id. at p. 17.
This denial noted Petitioner's poor parole supervision
history, failure to demonstrate motivation for success, and
an unfavorable risk and needs assessment, factors which were
cited in Parker's two prior reparole denials.
pending petition challenges the legality of denial of his
request for parole. He contends that the adverse parole
decisions were retaliatory and violated his right to due
process because the reasons stated by the Parole Board were
arbitrary and capricious.
28, United States Code § 2241, vests the federal
district courts with jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas
corpus to persons in custody in violation of the
Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.
See 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
argues that there is no basis for federal habeas corpus
relief because Parker does not have a liberty interest in
parole and was not denied reparole because of any arbitrary
or constitutionally impermissible reasons. See Doc.
6, p. 6.
well-settled that “there is no constitutional or
inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally
released before the expiration of a valid sentence."
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal &
Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). Likewise,
the Pennsylvania parole statute does not create a liberty
interest in the right to be paroled. Rodgers v. Parole
Agent SCI-Frackville, Wech, 916 F.Supp. 474, 476-77
(E.D. Pa. 1996); McCrery v. Mark, 823 F.Supp. 288,
294 (E.D. Pa. 1993); Thorpe v. Grillo, 80 Fed.Appx.
215 (3d Cir. 2003)(because there is no ...