FIELDS v. PA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE et al

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by DAMION FIELDS dismissing petition and denying a certificate of appealability. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 06/21/2018. (Mitchell, Robert)

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

DAMION FIELDS, EE-1432,
Petitioner,
v.
PA. BOARD OF PROBATION AND
PAROLE, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:17-cv-1043

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
Damion Fields, and inmate at the State Correctional Institution Coal Township has
presented a petition for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF. No. 1). For the reasons set forth below, the
petition will be dismissed and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for
appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will be denied.
Fields is presently serving a 7 ½ to 20 years sentence and a 1 ½ to five year sentence
imposed following his conviction by a jury of rape and corruption of minors at No. 10459 of
1999 in the Court of Common Pleas of Lebanon County, Pennsylvania. This sentence was
imposed on February 23, 2000.1 He now seeks to challenge the action of the Pennsylvania Board
of Probation and Parole (“the Board”) in denying his release on parole. Specifically, he contends:
I’ve had interviews with the Parole Board about 10 times. I was
paroled in 2012. I violated in 2014. I’ve seen the Parole Board every
year after that to be re-paroled in 2015, 2016 and 2017. In 2016 and
2017 I had support of the D.O.C. to be re-paroled and all
psychological reports support. The interviewer turned the interview
into an interrogation when his line of core questions was focus on
physical assault… I’ve done all that was ask[ed] of me from the
Parole Board and the D.O.C. I have 15 programs done all dealing with
thinking, impulse control and risk factors. On my own self-help I’ve
done extensive self-improvements through educational and vocational
advancements as well as therapy and a little more than 10 years of
disciplinary free incarceration…

1

See: Petition at ¶¶ 1-6.

Miranda rights violation in the interview with the Parole Board they
interrogated me about a[n] assault that I didn’t do. I never hit the
victim…2
Appended to the response (ECF No.7) are the statements of the Board following various
parole hearings. Following a hearing on December 19, 2014, the Board recommitted the petitioner
as a technical and convicted parole violator with a parole maximum date of May 15, 2026 (Ex.D).
On May 20, 2015 another hearing was held at which time release was denied and it was
concluded that Fields had to participate and complete additional institutional programs, was not
recommended for release by the D.O.C., his prior unsatisfactory parole history, the risk to the
community and his denial and lack of remorse for the offenses (Ex.E). Following a hearing
conducted on May 18, 2017 parole was again denied on the bases of risk to the community,
unsatisfactory parole history and minimization/denial and lack of remorse for the offenses. (Ex.
E).
Fields now comes before this Court and contends that he continues to remain incarcerated
in violation of the due process and equal protection clauses.3 These claims have not been
presented to the Commonwealth courts but in Defoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 445 (3d
Cir.2005), cert. denied 545 U.S. 1149 (2005) it was held that "we conclude that claims of
constitutional violations in the denial of parole in Pennsylvania need not be presented to the state
courts via a petition for writ of mandamus in order to satisfy the requirement of exhaustion"
(footnote omitted).
The relevant Pennsylvania statute, 61 Pa.C.S.A.§ 6137 does not create a mandatory
expectation of parole which has been determined to be a matter of grace. Rogers v. Pennsylvania
Board of Probation and Parole, 555 Pa. 285 (1999). In the absence of a state mandated right of
parole, parole is a matter of mere possibility and does not invoke a federally protected liberty
interest. Kentucky Department of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 455 (1989). In
Connecticut v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458 (1981), the Court recognized that where there is no
liberty interest created, there is no constitutional basis for relief. Since federal habeas corpus
relief is premised on violations of constitutional proportion, no such factors exist here since the
reasons for denying parole were based on the plaintiff’s conduct both inside and outside the

2
3

See: Petition at ¶ 12.
Id.

2

institution and not on some arbitrary basis such race, religion, political beliefs, or ... frivolous
criteria with no rational relationship to the purpose of parole such as the color of one’s eyes, the
school one attended, or the style of one’s clothing. Block v. Potter, 631 F.2d 233, 235 (3d
Cir.1980).
In Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480,487 (3d Cir.2001), the Court observed that “federal
courts are not authorized by the due process clause to second-guess parole boards and the
requirements of substantive due process are met if there is some basis for the challenged
decision.”
The applicable Pennsylvania law is set forth in 61 Pa.C.S.A. §6138(a):
(1) A parolee under the jurisdiction of the board released from a correctional
facility, who, during the period on parole or while delinquent on parole,
commits a crime punishable by imprisonment, for which the parolee is
convicted or found guilty … or to which the parolee pleads guilty or nolo
contendere at any time, thereafter in a court of record, may at the discretion of
the board be recommitted as a parole violator.
(2) If the parolee's recommitment is so ordered, the parolee shall be reentered to
serve the remainder of the term which the parolee would have been compelled
to serve had the parole not been granted, and shall be given no credit for the
time at liberty on parole. (emphasis added).
Thus, the record clearly demonstrates that Field’s continued incarceration is not the result
of a violation of any federally protected rights. The calculation of his sentence is fully supported
by the record here based on his conduct within and without the prison,
Because the petitioner has failed to demonstrate that any action of the Board was contrary
to federal law as determined by the Supreme Court nor involved an unreasonable application of
those determinations he is not entitled to relief here. For this reason, the petition of Damion
Fields for a writ of habeas corpus will be dismissed, and because reasonable jurists could not
conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a certificate of appealability will be denied.
An appropriate Order will be entered.

s/ Robert C. Mitchell
United States Magistrate Judge

Filed: June 21, 2018

3

ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of June 2018, for the reasons set forth in the foregoing
Memorandum, the petition of Damion Fields for a writ of habeas corpus (ECF No.1) is
DISMISSED, and because reasonable jurists could not conclude that a basis for appeal exists, a
certificate of appealability is DENIED.
If any party desires to appeal this determination, a notice of appeal must be filed within
thirty (30) days of this Order as required by Rule 4(a)F.R.App.P.

s/ Robert C. Mitchell
United States Magistrate Judge

4