Mathis v. Kauffman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CHRISTOPHER ALEXANDER MATH:IS

Petitioner :

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:19-1377

v. :

(Judge Mannion)

KEVIN KAUFFMAN, :

Superintendent

:

Respondent

MEMORANDUM

I. Background

Petitioner, Christopher Alexander Mathis, an inmate confined in the

State Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, filed the instant

petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. He challenges

the legality of a West Virginia detainer lodged against him. (Doc. 1, petition).

Specifically, he claims that “since October 26, 2017, the United States

Marshal’s Service has caused a detainer to be lodged against Petitioner (who

is serving a state sentence of 3 to 10 years following his conviction of various

drug violations), relating to alleged violations of the terms of Petitioner’s

federal supervised release.” Id. Despite Petitioner’s requests, including the

filing of a Motion for Transport on or about May 26, 2019, no action has been

taken to resolve the allegations of violation of the terms of Petitioner’s

supervised release. Id. Petitioner alleges that “as a consequence of the

detainer which remains lodged against [him], Petitioner has and continues to

be denied participation in various rehabilitative programming, employment

opportunities and housing status.” Id. He, thus, challenges the West Virginia

District Court’s “refusal to take action on alleged violation of supervised

release, relating to which a detainer remains lodged against him.” Id. For

relief, Petitioner seeks “an order directing action be taken on alleged violation

of the terms of Petitioner's supervised relief or direct that the detainer that

remains lodged against Petitioner therewith be quashed.” Id. For the reasons

outlined below, the Court will deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.

ll. Discussion

Habeas corpus petitions brought under §2254 are subject to summary

dismissal pursuant to Rule 4 ("Preliminary Consideration by the Judge") of the

Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, 28

U.S.C. foll. §2254 (1977). See, e.g., Patton v. Fenton, 491 F. Supp. 156, 158-

59 (M.D. Pa. 1979). The Rules are applicable to §2241 petitions under Rule

1(b). Id.

In pertinent part, Rule 4 provides that “[iJf it plainly appears from the

petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in

the district court, the judge must dismiss the petition and direct the clerk to

notify the petitioner.” In this case, it is apparent from the face of the petition

that Mathis cannot seek habeas relief in this Court.

Specifically, the Court finds that the deprivation of which Mathis

complains - his preclusion from participating in prison rehabilitative programs

- would remain a deprivation imposed by the state having custody over him,

more specifically, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, and not by

any federal authority. Cf. Caruso v. United States Bd. of Parole, 570 F.2d

1150, 1155 (3d Cir.1978) (“He does not nor can he charge that the federal

Parole Board is denying him access to prison programs ... because it has

issued a parole violator warrant .... [Rather], it is the State of New Jersey, not

the federal authorities, which is alleg[edly] depriving [petitioner] of his ‘rights’.

As such, whatever the basis for [petitioner’s] charges (and we express no

view as to their validity), the appropriate targets for [his] attack are state

prison officials ....”).

Petitioner appears to argue that the collateral consequences of the

continued parole detainer warrant violates his right to due process. However,

under Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976), Petitioner is not entitled to the

due process protections with regards to the parole revocation process until

the warrant is executed and he is taken into custody as a parole violator. The

collateral consequences of the detainer do not deprive Petitioner of his right

to due process.

It is by now well-established that a parolee facing revocation of parole

3

has a constitutional liberty interest in his freedom, despite its conditional and

qualified nature. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 483 (1972). As a

consequence, the government may not revoke parole without providing due

process as required by the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments to our

Constitution. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 483; United States v. Lloyd, 566 F.3d

341, 343 (3d Cir. 2009). Among the requirements necessary to comport with

due process, a Petitioner is entitled to a revocation hearing within a

reasonable time after being taken into custody. Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 487-

89; United States v. Dobson, 585 F.2d 55, 61 (3d Cir. 1978). These rights do

not attach, however, until the execution of a parole violator warrant “for the

loss of liberty as a parole violator does not occur until the parolee is taken into

custody under the warrant.” Moody, 429 U.S. at 87.

However, a federal prisoner serving his sentence for a criminal

conviction that also amounts to a violation of parole for an earlier conviction

has lost his liberty not because of the outstanding parole violator warrant, but

because of the criminal conviction. ld. at 86-87. “Issuance of the warrant and

notice of that fact to the institution of confinement did no more than express

the [USPC’s] intent to defer consideration of parole revocation to a later time.”

Id. at 86. Thus, “a federal parolee, when convicted of and imprisoned by

federal authorities for another crime committed while on parole, has no right

to a prompt revocation hearing upon the issuance of a parole violator warrant

based on that second crime.” U.S. ex rel. Caruso v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 570

F.2d 1150, 1153 (3d Cir. 1978).

In the instant case, Petitioner presently is in custody at the SCI-

Huntingdon, serving his state court sentence. Generally, consistent with

federal regulations, the USPC must schedule a revocation hearing within

ninety days of execution of the violator warrant. 28 C.F.R. §2.49(f). Petitioner

appears to suggest that the delay from the imposition of the detainer until its

anticipated execution is unreasonable and deprives him of a protected liberty

interest without due process. However, in this case, Petitioner cannot avail

himself of this argument, for until the warrant is executed, he has no lost

liberty interest due to the outstanding parole violator warrant. See Moody, 429

U.S. at 86-87; U.S. ex rel. Caruso, 570 F.2d at 1153.

Petitioner also argues that the imposition of the detainer and delay in

executing the warrant deny him the opportunity to participate in prison

rehabilitation and early release programs, which Petitioner contends is a

deprived liberty interest without due process. These collateral consequences

of the detainer do not, however, rise to the level of a constitutional deprivation

for which habeas relief can be granted. '

1.

In general, an inmate does not have a liberty interest in assignment to a

particular institution or to a particular security classification, so long as the

conditions or degree of the inmate’s confinement falls within the sentence

The Supreme Court in Moody directly addressed and rejected a similar

argument, where the petitioner maintained “that the pending warrant and

detainer adversely affect [ed] his prison classification and qualification for

institutional programs.” 429 U.S. at 88 n. 9. The Supreme Court declined to

grant relief for the denial of such benefits that are left to the “full discretion” of

prison officials and so the petitioner had “no legitimate statutory or

imposed upon him and does not otherwise violate the U.S. Constitution.

See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 245 (1983); Meachum v. Fano,

427 U.S. 215, 224-25 (1976); Montayne v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 243

(1976); Moody, 429 U.S. at 88 n. 9 (noting that prison classification and

eligibility for rehabilitative programs in the federal prison system are

matters delegated by Congress to the “full discretion” of federal prison

officials and thus implicate “no legitimate statutory or constitutional

entitlement sufficient to invoke due process”); Wesson v. Atlantic County

Jail Facility, 2008 WL 5062028, *6 (D.N.J. Nov. 26, 2008) (it is well

established that an inmate has no liberty interest in a particular custody

level or place of confinement). See also Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472,

484-86 (1995) (holding that a liberty interest is implicated only where the

action creates “atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation

to the ordinary incidents of prison life” or creates a “major disruption in his

environment”); Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454,

463 (1989) (holding that a liberty interest arises only where a statute or

regulation uses “explicitly mandatory language” that instructs the

decision-maker to reach a specific result if certain criteria are met). See

also Marti v. Nash, 227 Fed. Appx. 148, 150 (3d Cir. 2007) (inmate has no

due process right to any particular security classification and, therefore,

could not challenge his public safety factor of “greatest severity”, which

prevented his placement in a minimum security facility); Day v. Nash, 191

Fed. Appx. 137, 139-40 (3d Cir. 2006) (upholding application of a public

safety factor to inmate’s custody classification which prevented inmate’s

placement in a minimum security camp).

constitutional entitlement sufficient to invoke due process.” Moody, 429 U.S.

at 88 n. 9; see Becerra v. Miner, 248 F. Appx. 368, 370 (3d Cir. 2007) (inmate

assigned public safety factor of “deportable alien” had no liberty interest in his

consequential disqualification for certain institutional programs); Richardson

v. Joslin, 501 F.3d 415, 419-20 (5th Cir. 2007) (prisoner's inability to pursue

early release due to his detainer does not implicate his due process rights, for

he had no liberty interest in a sentence reduction under Section 3621(e));

James v. DeRosa, Civil No. 04-3808, 2005 WL 2247951, at *3—-4 (D.N.J.

Sept. 14, 2005) (holding that the existence of a detainer is “a legitimate factor

to consider in determining eligibility for custody-related programming,”

specifically the community transitional services component of the BOP

substance abuse treatment program, and thus an inmate with a detainer

cannot challenge the BOP decision on these grounds). See also Meachum,

427 U.S. at 226-28 (holding that a statute which grants the prison

administration discretion does not confer a right on an inmate).

Therefore, in the absence of a protectable interest in either his prison

classification, his qualification for rehabilitative programs, or early release,

Petitioner cannot show a constitutional deprivation as a result of the existence

of the parole violator detainer or the delay in holding a parole revocation

hearing. See Merriweather v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, No. 08-1977, 2009 WL

1684589, at *5 (E.D. Cal. June 16, 2009) (petitioner not entitled to relief based

on fact that parole violator detainer prevented placement in a halfway house

and early release); Bovio v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, No. 06–15213, 2008 WL

1808323 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 21 2008) (same); Evans v. Frank, No. 07–631, 2007

WL 4207517 (E.D.Wis. Nov. 26, 2007) (same). The Court having found the

Petitioner was not deprived of due process as a result of the detainer and

delay in receiving a parole revocation hearing or the collateral consequences

of that delay, his present incarceration is lawful and the Court will deny his

request for habeas relief for lack of merit.

III. Conclusion

Based upon the foregoing, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus under

28 U.S.C. §2241 will be denied for lack of merit. A separate Order will be

issued.

s/ Malachy E. Mannion

MALACHY E. MANNION

United States District Judge

Date: September 20, 2019

19-1377-01

8