HUGHES v. CAMERON et al
Filing
13
MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER re 5 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by TIMOTHY ALLEN HUGHES, denying the Petition as Petitioner fails to show that the Board violated his substantive due process rights given that the reasons for the Board 9;s denying Petitioner parole are not arbitrary and capricious. A certificate of appealability is also denied. Signed by Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly on 7-19-2016. A copy of the Opinion together with this Notice of Electronic Filing are being sent to Petitioner at his address of record via first class mail. (tmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
TIMOTHY ALLEN HUGHES,
Petitioner,
vs.
CAMERON, Superintendent;
KATHLEEN KANE, Attorney General of
Pennsylvania,
Respondent.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil Action No. 14-29J
Chief Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Timothy Allen Hughes (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (the “Petition”) to
challenge the denial of parole by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (the “Board”).
Petitioner claims that the Board’s denying him parole was arbitrary and capricious. Because the
Board’s decision denying Petitioner parole is not conscience shocking, Petitioner’s claim must
fail. Accordingly, the Petition will be denied and a Certificate of Appealability will likewise be
denied.
I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. State Proceedings
On May 16, 2012, Petitioner was sentenced to 2 to 6 years of incarceration for
committing the crime of arson, endangering a person. 18 Pa.C.S. § 3301(a). On April 12, 2013,
the Board denied Petitioner parole for the first time after the completion of Petitioner’s minimum
sentence. In its April 12, 2013 decision denying Petitioner parole, the Board gave the following
reasons for its decision:
YOUR MINIMIZATION/DENIAL OF THE NATURE AND THE
CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE OFFENSE(S) COMMITTED.
THE NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION MADE BY THE TRIAL JUDGE.
THE NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION BY THE PROSECUTING
ATTORNEY.
ECF No. 7-1. In addition, the Board indicated to Petitioner that at his next parole application and
hearing, the Board would consider whether he successfully maintained a favorable
recommendation for parole from the Department of Corrections, and whether he had maintained
a clear conduct record. Id.
B. Federal Proceedings.
Petitioner filed the instant Petition pro se. ECF No. 5. The sole Ground for relief that
Petitioner raises is: “Petitioner avers that he was denied parole for impermissible reasons.” ECF
No. 5 at 5. Respondents filed an Answer to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (the “Answer”),
in which they denied Petitioner was entitled to any relief. ECF No. 7. Respondents also attached
to the Answer, a copy of the Board’s April 12, 2013 decision denying Petitioner parole. All
parties have consented to the exercise of plenary jurisdiction by the Magistrate Judge. ECF Nos.
8; 10.
II. DISCUSSION
Petitioner claims that the Board denied him parole for “impermissible reasons.” But
does not specify which of the Board’s reasons were impermissible. Hence, we deem Petitioner to
be asserting that all three reasons by the Board were impermissible. In a conclusory fashion,
Petitioner asserts that “the Board’s stated reasons for denying him [i.e., Petitioner] parole is
arbitrary and capricious and violates the plea agreement.” ECF No. 5 at 6. Broadly construing
the Petition, we deem Petitioner to be making a substantive due process claim under the
Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Buclary v. Borough of Northampton, No. CIV. A. 90-7950,
1991 WL 133851, at *9 (E.D. Pa. July 17, 1991) (“Several circuit courts have interpreted Ewing
2
to hold that an arbitrary and capricious deprivation of state-created entitlements implicates
substantive due process concerns.”). See also Goodman v. McVey, 428 F. App’x 125, 127 (3d
Cir. 2011) (“To find a substantive due process violation, Goodman would have to show that the
violation involved action that shocks the conscience.”). See also Benson v. Martin, 8 F. App’x
927, 930 (10th Cir. 2001) (explaining it is a habeas petitioner’s burden to establish that the
challenged action shocks the conscience).
Petitioner fails to show that the Board’s reasons for denying him parole shock the
conscience. Moreover, we find that the Board’s stated reasons do not constitute arbitrary and
capricious reasons for denying Petitioner parole. The Board’s reliance on the reason that
Petitioner minimizes the nature and circumstances of his offense is not arbitrary and capricious.
Prever v. Barone, 428 F. App’x 218, 220 (3d Cir. 2011) (“Similarly, the PBPP defendants denied
parole based on the DOC's negative recommendation, and Prevet's ‘minimization of the nature
and circumstances of the offense(s) committed.’ We agree with the District Court that these are
also legitimate penological concerns”). The Board’s reliance on the negative recommendation of
the trial judge is not arbitrary and capricious. See Harclerode v. Harry, No. 1:14-CV-01454,
2014 WL 4536525, at *3 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 11, 2014). (denying the habeas petition, where
petitioner claimed that the Board’s reliance on a negative recommendation by the trial judge was
unsubstantiated). The Board’s reliance on the recommendation of the prosecutor is not arbitrary
and capricious. Smith v. Nish, No. CIV. 3:CV-06-2291, 2007 WL 1544829, at *3 (M.D. Pa.
May 24, 2007) (“In the instant case, each of the reasons set forth by the Board for denying
reparole [which included the recommendation made by the prosecutor] were permissible
considerations. In deciding whether to grant parole, the Board is required to consider the
protection of the safety of the public and in so doing, consider the nature and character of the
3
offense committed, the general character and history of the inmate, as well as their written or
personal statement, any testimony by the victim, and recommendations of the trial judge, district
attorney and any warden or superintendent who has control over the inmate. Each reason
provided by the Board falls within the realm of not only permissible, but required factors to be
considered. The Board set forth the reasons supporting its denial and it cannot be said that they
are arbitrary.”). Accordingly, Petitioner fails to show that the Board’s decision violates
substantive due process because the Board’s reasons for denying Petitioner parole are not
arbitrary and capricious.
To the extent that Petitioner claims the Board’s denial of parole violated his plea
agreement, Petitioner has not produced a written plea agreement and so fails to show that he was
guaranteed in that plea agreement that he would be released on parole after the expiration of his
minimum sentence. Hence, Petitioner fails to carry his burden to show that his constitutional
rights were violated.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Petition is DENIED. Because jurists of
reason would not find the foregoing debatable, a Certificate of Appealability is likewise
DENIED.
BY THE COURT,
s/Maureen P. Kelly
MAUREEN P. KELLY
CHIEF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Date: July 19, 2016
cc:
Timothy Allen Hughes
KP-2180
SCI Houtzdale
P.O. Box 1000
Houtzdale, PA 16698
All counsel of record via ECF
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?