Wolfe v. Wetzel

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES A. WOLFE, Civil No. 3:20-cv-1153

Petitioner (Judge Mariani)

v. .

JOHN E. WETZEL, et al, .

Respondents

MEMORANDUM

Petitioner James Wolfe (“Wolfe”), an inmate currently confined at the State

Correctional Institution, Huntingdon, Pennsylvania, filed the instant petition for writ of

mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. (Doc. 2). He challenges the denial of parole by

the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (“the Parole Board”). (/d.). Wolfe seeks a

writ of mandamus vacating the Parole Board’s decision and directing the Parole Board to

hold a new hearing. (/d. at p. 15). For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the

petition.

l. Background

Wolfe is currently serving a sentence of thirteen years, four months, and twenty-

seven days to forty-five years, five months for homicide by vehicle while driving under the

influence. (Doc. 1, p. 1; Doc. 11, pp. 15-18). His maximum sentence date is April 3, 2046.

(Doc. 11, pp. 15-18). The Parole Board has denied Wolfe parole six times. (Doc. 2, p. 12).

In the instant mandamus petition, Wolfe alleges that a change in the Parole Board's

internal procedures to require five votes instead of two votes to grant parole to inmates

convicted of homicide by vehicle while driving under the influence violates the ex post facto

clause of the United States Constitution. (Doc. 2). Wolfe further challenges the Board’s

denial of parole on May 21, 2019 as arbitrary, and he challenges the Board's finding that he

did not demonstrate sufficient remorse. (/d. at pp. 3-4). He requests that this Court vacate

the Parole Board’s May 21, 2019 decision, order a new parole hearing, and order that the

Parole Board exercise its discretion and not base its decision on erroneous findings. (Id. at

p. 15).

Il. Discussion

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, “[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of

any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States

or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.” Mandamus is a “drastic

remedy that ‘is seldom issued and [ ] is discouraged.” /n re Patenaude, 210 F.3d 135, 140

(3d Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). “Before a writ of mandamus may issue, a party must

establish that (1) no other adequate means exist to attain the relief he desires, (2) the

party's right to issuance of the writ is clear and indisputable, and (3) the writ is appropriate

under the circumstances.” Hollingsworth v. Perry, 558 U.S. 183, 190 (2010) (per curiam)

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Wolfe cannot establish a clear and

indisputable right to the issuance of a writ. Nor can he demonstrate that the writ is

appropriate under the circumstances.

In the petition, it is clear that Wolfe requests this Court to direct the state parole

board to take a specific course of action on his request for parole. However, a writ of

mandamus may only issue if the plaintiff has a clear right to relief and the defendant has a

clear duty to act, and “can only be granted where a legal duty ‘is positively commanded and

so plainly prescribed as to be free from doubt.” Appalachian States Low-Level Radioactive

Waste Comm'n v. O'Leary, 93 F.3d 103, 112 n.9 (3d Cir. 1996). This basic limitation on the

writ of mandamus is fatal to the instant petition, wherein Wolfe seeks to use a writ of

mandamus to dictate the exercise of discretion by the state parole board and is premised on

the absolute “right” to parole. However, it is well-settled that “there is no constitutional or

inherent right of a convicted person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a

valid sentence,” nor has the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania created such a right.

Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979); see also

Burkett v. Love, 89 F.3d 135, 139 (3d Cir. 1996) (recognizing the general principle that the

Pennsylvania parole statute does not create a liberty interest in the right to be paroled);

Coady v. Vaughn, 770 A.2d 287, 289 (Pa. 2001) (“It is undisputed that [an inmate] does not

have a clear legal right to the grant of parole, nor does the board have a corresponding duty

to grant the same.”). Because federal law and Pennsylvania statutes plainly do not create a

cognizable, and absolute, right to parole, Wolfe cannot demonstrate a duty so clearly

commanded and free from doubt as to justify issuance of a writ of mandamus.

Additionally, to the extent that Wolfe seeks an order directing state officials to take

specific action, “the request lies outside the bounds of our mandamus jurisdiction as a

federal court.” In re Brown, 382 F. App’x 150, 150-51 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing In re Tennant,

359 F.3d 523, 531 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). Instead, Wolfe must turn to state courts if he seeks a

writ of mandamus against state officials.

lll. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above, the Court will deny the petition for writ of

mandamus. (Doc. 2). A separate Order shall issue.

YY

AV, Wier

Robert D. Mariani

United States District Judge

Dated: January /4. 2021

‘