holding that because noncapital defendants do not have a liberty interest in state executive clemency, they cannot challenge the constitutionality of its procedures
How later courts described this case
- holding that because noncapital defendants do not have a liberty interest in state executive clemency, they cannot challenge the constitutionality of its procedures
- affirming denial of first petition filed pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief Act
- “we hold that a pro se prisoner’s habeas petition is deemed filed at the moment he delivers it to prison officials for mailing to the district court.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GARY JAMES ROBINSON, )
)
Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 23-2021
) Magistrate Judge Maureen P. Kelly
V. )
) Re: ECF No. 18
MARK BROTHERS, Superintendent SCI Pine)
Grove; THE PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF _ )
PARDONS; and THE ATTORNEY )
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF )
PENNSYLVANIA, )
)
Respondents. )
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Pending before the Court is Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss the Petition under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Gary James Robinson (“Petitioner”), a state prisoner
currently incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Pine Grove. ECF No. 18.
For the reasons stated herein, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted, the Petition will be
dismissed, and a certificate of appealability will be denied.'
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner initiated the present matter by filing the petition on November 20, 2023. ECF
No. 1 at 6. See also Burns v. Morton, 134 F.3d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1998) (“we hold that a pro se
prisoner’s habeas petition is deemed filed at the moment he delivers it to prison officials for
mailing to the district court.”). Therein, he challenges the decision of the Pennsylvania Board of
' Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States
Magistrate Judge to conduct all proceedings, including trial and entry of final judgment, with direct
review by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit if an appeal is filed. ECF Nos.
3, 28.
Pardons to deny him clemency. Petitioner is serving a sentence of life imprisonment imposed in
1978 following his conviction in the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County, Pennsylvania, for,
inter alia, murder of the second degree and robbery at docket number CP-04-CR-0000199-1977.
Respondents filed the instant Motion to Dismiss on June 14, 2024. ECF No. 18. Petitioner
filed a Response to the Motion on July 11, 2024. ECF No. 23. He filed Amended and
Supplemental Pleadings in response to the Motion on July 20, 2024. ECF No. 24.
The Motion to Dismiss is ripe for consideration.
ll. ANALYSIS
Respondents argue, inter alia, that Petitioner’s challenge to the denial of clemency is not
cognizable in this federal habeas petition. ECF No. 18 at 5-7. Respondents are correct and thus
this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Petitioner’s petition.
28 U.S.C. § 2254, the federal habeas statute applicable to prisoners in custody pursuant to
a state court judgment, permits a federal court to grant a state prisoner a writ of habeas corpus “on
the ground that he or she is in custody in violation of the Constitution...of the United States.” 28
U.S.C. § 2254(a). In the instant petition, Petitioner does not seek review of the conviction and
sentence for which he is in custody.” Instead, he seeks review of the basis on which the state Board
of Pardons denied his request for clemency, asserting he was denied due process of law in that
proceeding. ECF No. 1 at 5. This challenge is not an attack on his detention and thus does not
constitute a ground for habeas relief. Eisen v. Rozum, 2014 WL 1234505, at *4 and n.7 (W.D. Pa.
Mar. 25, 2014) (holding that a challenge to the Board of Pardons denial of commutation is not
He has done so in both state and federal courts. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Jerry, 401 A.2d 310
(Pa. 1979) (affirming judgment of sentence); Commonwealth v. Robinson, 421 A.2d 1066 (Pa.
1980) (affirming denial of first petition filed pursuant to Pennsylvania’s Post Conviction Relief
Act); Robinson v. Fulcomer, Civ. A. No. 85-2924 (W.D. Pa.) (disposing of habeas petition); ECF
No. 18-1.
cognizable on habeas review); DA’s Office v. Osborne, 557 U.S. 52 (2009) (holding that because
noncapital defendants do not have a liberty interest in state executive clemency, they cannot
challenge the constitutionality of its procedures); Ohio Adult Parole Auth. v. Woodard, 523 U.S.
272, 284-85 (1998) (explaining that clemency proceedings are not an integral part of the system
for finally adjudicating guilt or innocence but are a matter of grace committed to authority of
executive authority and not the business of the courts); Otey v. Hopkins, 5 F.3d 1125, 1131-32 □□□
Cir. 1993) (holding that habeas petitioner’s claim that his constitutional rights were violated via
the state Board of Pardons’ procedures in considering his request for clemency was not cognizable
in a 2254 petition).
Accordingly, Respondents’ Motion to Dismiss will be granted and this petition will be
dismissed.
WI. CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
A certificate of appealability will be denied, as Petitioner has failed to make “a substantial
showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). See also Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000).
An appropriate Order follows.
&
Dated: March.“ _, 2025 BY THE COURT: ,
eo ah eet ON gl /
f fe tp f □ } oa □
AE ALL fae Hg,
MAUREEN P; KELLY □ 4
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
cc: Gary James Robinson
AP-3273
SCI Pine Grove
189 Fyock Road
Indiana, PA 15701