Andrews v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GERALD ANDREWS, :

Petitioner :

: No. 1:19-cv-193

v. :

: (Judge Rambo)

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF :

PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al.,:

Respondents :

MEMORANDUM

Presently before the Court are pro se Petitioner Gerald Andrews

(“Petitioner”)’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(Doc. No. 1), Respondents’ response thereto (Doc. Nos. 18, 19), and Petitioner’s

traverse (Doc. No. 22). In his § 2254 petition, Petitioner challenges an October 22,

2018 decision by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (“PBPP”) to deny

him parole. (Doc. No. 1.) In an Order dated February 10, 2020, the Court directed

Petitioner to show cause why his § 2254 petition should not be dismissed as moot

because Petitioner had updated his address to indicate that he is now residing in

Philadelphia and because the Department of Corrections (“DOC”)’s inmate locator

indicated that Petitioner is no longer incarcerated at a DOC facility. (Doc. No. 27.)

Despite receiving an extension of time (Doc. Nos. 28, 29), Petitioner has not

responded to the Court’s Order. For the following reasons, the Court will dismiss

as moot Petitioner’s § 2254 petition.

I. BACKGROUND

Petitioner initiated the above-captioned case while he was still incarcerated at

the State Correctional Institution Smithfield in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania (“SCI

Smithfield”). At that time, Petitioner was serving a four (4) to eight (8) year term of

imprisonment for carrying a firearm without a license and being a person not to

possess firearms. (Doc. No. 18, Ex. A.) The DOC calculated Petitioner’s minimum

sentence date to be February 1, 2019, and his maximum sentence date to be February

1, 2023. (Id.) On October 22, 2018, the PBPP denied Petitioner parole. (Id., Ex.

B.) The PBPP’s decision indicated that it would review Petitioner’s file in or after

October 2019. (Id.) Petitioner filed his § 2254 petition on February 4, 2019. (Doc.

No. 1.) He alleges that the PBPP’s denial of parole violated his due process rights

as well as his rights under the Eighth Amendment. (Id.) As relief, Petitioner requests

that be granted parole. (Id.)

II. DISCUSSION

A petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 may be

brought by “a person in custody pursuant of a State court only on the ground that he

is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.”

28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Moreover, Article III of the Constitution provides that the

“judicial power shall extend to . . . cases . . . [and] to controversies.” U.S. Const.

Art. III, § 2. Thus, federal courts are restricted to adjudicating “actual, ongoing cases

or controversies.” Khodara Envtl., Inc. v. Beckman, 237 F.3d 186, 193 (3d Cir.

2001). “If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a

[petitioner’s] personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being

able to grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.” Blanciak v.

Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 (3d Cir. 2001). Consequently, in the

absence of continuing collateral consequences, a federal district court does not have

jurisdiction to review moot habeas claims. North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U.S. 244,

246 (1971) (noting that “[m]ootness is a jurisdictional question”). The petitioner

bears the burden of demonstrating that collateral consequences exist to avoid having

the case dismissed as moot. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998).

As noted above, in his § 2254 petition, Petitioner requests that the Court grant

him parole. (Doc. No. 1.) Petitioner’s release on parole, therefore, renders his

§ 2254 petition moot unless he can demonstrate “continuing collateral consequences

sufficient to meet Article III’s ‘case or controversy’ or ‘injury’ requirement.”

Gilliam, 2018 WL 6492964, at *2. Collateral consequences refer to those

“consequences with negligible effects on a petitioner’s physical liberty of

movement.” Virsnieks v. Smith, 521 F.3d 707, 718 (3d Cir. 2008). While the

Supreme Court will presume that “a wrongful criminal conviction has continuing

collateral consequences,” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 8, courts will not do so when the

petitioner is challenging the denial of release on parole, id. at 14. Thus, Petitioner

“must demonstrate that he has suffered or is threatened with an actual injury . . . that

can be redressed by a favorable decision here.” Okereke v. United States, 307 F.3d

117, 121 (3d Cir. 2002). Petitioner failed to respond to the Court’s February 10,

2020 show cause Order and, therefore, has not demonstrated that collateral

consequences exist such that his § 2254 petition should not be dismissed as moot.

III. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability (“COA”), an appeal may not be taken from a final order

in a proceeding initiated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. A COA may issue only if

the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating

that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court’s resolution of his

constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented are adequate

to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

327 (2003). “When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds

without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue

when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable

whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and

that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in

its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). In the case at

bar, jurists of reason would not find the procedural disposition of this case debatable.

Accordingly, the Court will not issue a COA in this case.

IV. CONCLUSION

For the following reasons, Petitioner’s § 2254 petition (Doc. No. 1) will be

dismissed as moot. A COA will not issue. An appropriate Order follows.

s/ Sylvia H. Rambo

United States District Judge

Dated: March 23, 2020