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.

Clark v. Torma

United States District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania

July 31, 2018

MICHELLE LEMARIE CLARK, Petitioner,
v.
JOANNE TORMA, JOHN TUTTLE, and PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondents.

          OPINION

          MAUREEN P. KELLY CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         Michelle LeMarie Clark (“Petitioner”) is a state prisoner, proceeding pro se, who was convicted of two counts of Criminal Conspiracy to commit homicide, five counts of Statutory Sexual Assault and five counts of Involuntary Deviate Sexual Intercourse, involving her scheme to manipulate a juvenile boy, age 15, to kill Petitioner's husband. Petitioner was sentenced to 12 to 30 years of incarceration. She has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”). ECF No. 4. By means of the Petition, she seeks to challenge, not her conviction and sentence, but the denial of parole by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (the “Board”).

         I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         On February 20, 2001, Petitioner was sentenced in the Court of Common Pleas of Cambria County to concurrent sentences, totaling 12 to 30 years of incarceration. ECF No. 17 ¶ 1. Petitioner's minimum sentence expired on February 10, 2013. Id. ¶ 2. Her maximum sentence will expire on February 10, 2031. Id. ¶ 3. At the time that the Answer was filed, Petitioner had been denied parole four times: April 1, 2013; January 29, 2014; June 24, 2015; and March 16, 2016. Id. ¶ 4. It is this last denial of parole that Petitioner challenges in this Petition.

         In the Petition, Petitioner claims that the denial of parole was a “[v]iolation of substantive due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment and cruel and unusual punishment as precluded by the Eighth Amendment.” ECF No. 4 ¶ 12. Petitioner complains that her rights were violated for the following reasons: 1) the reasons given for denial of parole are punitive and redundant; 2) despite having the recommendation of the Department of Corrections, full staff support and low risk score in an RST evaluation, the Board states that she remains a risk to the community; 3) she has taken all of her mandatory programs and she remains misconduct free; 4) the Board overlooks or undervalues all of the accomplishments she has made while incarcerated; 5) the denials of parole are based in general language and not specifically addressed to Petitioner's personal situation. Id. at 6. Petitioner also requests that she receive a fair and impartial hearing before a different hearing examiner. Id.

         In the March 16, 2016 decision denying Petitioner parole, the Board provided Petitioner the following reasons for the denial:

REPORTS, EVALUATIONS ASSESSMENTS/LEVEL OF RISK INDICATES YOUR RISK TO THE COMMUNITY.
YOUR MINIMIZATION/DENIAL OF THE NATURE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSES(S) COMMITTED.
YOUR REFUSAL TO ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE OFFENSE(S) COMMITTED.
YOUR LACK OF REMORSE FOR THE OFFENSE(S) COMMITTED.

ECF No. 17-1 at 18.

         Respondents filed an Answer, denying that Petitioner was entitled to any relief. ECF No. 17. The parties have all consented to have the Magistrate Judge exercise plenary jurisdiction. ECF Nos. 10, 13.[1]

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Substantive ...


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.