Singleton v. Luarel et al
Filing
42
MEMORANDUM re REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 40 (Order to follow as separate docket entry) Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 7/20/17. (ma)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TYRONE SINGLETON,
Plaintiff,
v.
LAUREL HARRY, et al.,
Defendant.
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
Civil No. 1:13-cv-2711
Judge Sylvia H. Rambo
Chief Magistrate Judge Schwab
MEMORANDUM
Before the court is a report and recommendation filed by the magistrate
judge (Doc. 40) in which she recommends that the defendants’ motion for
summary judgment be granted. The plaintiff, Tyrone Singleton, has filed
objections. (Doc. 41.) For the reasons that follow, the report and recommendation
will be adopted.
I.
Background
Singleton commenced this Section 1983 action against three defendants –
Laurel Harry, Scott Whalen and Lisa Peters, personnel of SCI-Camp Hill. Initially
this court granted a motion to dismiss filed by defendants, but also granted
Singleton leave to amend. An amended complaint (Doc. 19) was filed in which
Singleton asserted claims of violations of the Eighth Amendment because of the
length of his solitary confinement and a violation of his due process rights by
continuing his detention without providing a hearing.
Upon review of a report and recommendation (Doc. 24), this court
granted in part and denied in part the defendants’ motion to dismiss. This court
dismissed the Eight Amendment claim with prejudice but allowed the due process
claim to proceed, citing an incomplete record. In the interim, the defendants
supplemented the record, filed a motion for summary judgment, a statement of
material facts, and a brief in support with supporting documents. (Docs. 33-35.)
Singleton filed a response and a counterstatement of facts.1 (Docs. 37-38.)
Defendants replied. (Doc. 39.)
II.
Discussion
The only claim remaining in this action is the due process claim against
Whalen and Peters for continuing Singleton’s confinement without arranging for a
parole revocation hearing. The defendants contend that this claim is barred by the
“favorable termination” rule set forth in Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994).
In Heck, the United States Supreme Court held that
in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional
conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by
actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or
sentence invalid, a Section 1983 plaintiff must prove that the
conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal,
expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state
tribunal authorized to make such [a] determination, or called
into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas
corpus, 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
1
Singleton has not responded paragraph by paragraph to all of the defendants’ statement of
material facts as required by Local Rule 56.1.
2
Id. at 486-87. This rule applies in the parole revocation context. Williams v.
Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173, 177 (3d Cir. 2006).
Based on the affidavit of New York Department of Corrections and
Community Supervision (“DCCS”) Bureau Chief Felix Rosa, the following is
established:
New York received a notice on December 27, 2012, from the
Pennsylvania Offender Violation Report reporting that Plaintiff
had operated a vehicle while intoxicated which resulted in New
York issuing a warrant (#621395) and lodging a detainer.2 . . .
On January 7, 2014, Plaintiff was sentenced for D.U.I. and
reckless driving by the Cumberland County Court of Common
Pleas. . . . On February 27, 2014 after conducting a parole
revocation hearing . . . Plaintiff’s parole was revoked.
(Doc. 34-1, ¶¶ 6-9.) All of the above facts are supported by court documents from
Cumberland County and the New York DCCS.
Because the records establish that Singleton’s parole was revoked and
there is nothing in the record showing that the revocation was set aside or declared
invalid, the magistrate judge opined that Singleton’s claim that he was denied a
timely revocation hearing is barred by Heck.
In his objections, Singleton claims that his parole was never revoked.
However, the documents attached to the Rosa affidavit reflect that after his
revocation hearing, Singleton received a fourteen month sentence (id. at pp. 12-13)
2
Singleton was a parolee from New York living in Pennsylvania and being supervised by the
Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole.
3
and that, as of February 27, 2014, he was eligible to be reparoled on March 14,
2014 (id. at p. 13; see also id. at p. 4, ¶ 9).
Based on the foregoing, the report and recommendation will be adopted.
s/Sylvia H. Rambo
SYLVIA H. RAMBO
United States District Judge
Dated: July 20, 2017
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?