LENHART v. GILMORE et al

Filing 32

ORDER denying 31 Motion for NOVA Review, which the Court interprets as a motion for reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on May 12, 2017. (kcc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TIMOTHY CLAYTON LENHART,
Petitioner,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT GILMORE and
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 15 - 86

Magistrate Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan
ECF No. 31

Respondents.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
On January 20, 2015, Petitioner filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (“Petition”)
challenging the October 28, 2014 decision of the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole
(“the Board”) to deny him parole. Because the Board had reviewed Petitioner for parole on two
subsequent occasions while his Petition was pending, the Court granted the Respondents’ Motion
to Dismiss and dismissed Petitioner’s Petition as moot on May 3, 2017. (ECF No. 29.)
Petitioner has now filed what he has titled a “Motion to have a NOVA Review,”1 (ECF No. 31),
wherein he appears to ask this Court to reconsider its decision dismissing his Petition as moot
because the last two times the Board denied him parole was for the same reasons as stated in its
October 28, 2014 decision. While this may be true, it does not save the instant Petition from
being moot.

1

The Court assumes that Petitioner meant “de novo” review.
1

The mootness doctrine prohibits federal courts from deciding a case if there is no longer
any controversy between the parties about the issues in that case, i.e., any decision will no longer
affect the parties. See DeFunis v. Odegaard, 416 U.S. 312, 316 (1974) (citing North Carolina v.
Rice, 404 U.S. 244, 246 (1971)); U.S. CONST. Art. III. Generally, a challenge to an earlier parole
decision is rendered moot by a subsequent parole decision. See Wolfe v. Diugielmo, No. 065261, 2008 WL 544645, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Feb. 28, 2008) (where appropriate relief for parole
denials would be a new hearing, challenge to prior denial is moot when petitioner has received a
new hearing). Because the appropriate remedy in this case would be a new hearing before the
Board, and because Petitioner has had a new hearing since the time he filed his Petition, any
claims challenging the denial of parole before his most recent denial of parole are moot. See
Wolfe, 2008 WL 544645, at *6 (citing cases). Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s “Motion for NOVA Review,” which the
Court interprets as a motion for reconsideration, is denied.
Dated: May 12, 2017.
/s/ Lisa Pupo Lenihan
Lisa Pupo Lenihan
United States Magistrate Judge

cc: Timothy Clayton Lenhart
KJ8290
175 Progress Drive
Waynesburg, PA 15370
Counsel of Record
Via CM/ECF Electronic Mail

2