SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER, Magistrate Judge.
Presently before the Court is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by state prisoner Michael Zigler pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. [ECF No. 1]. In the petition, he challenges a decision made by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (the "Board") on July 7, 2015, to deny him parole. For the reasons set forth below, the petition is denied and a certificate of appealability is denied.
On October 9, 2000, Petitioner was sentenced to 12-34 years of incarceration for committing the crimes of Robbery (two counts), Criminal Conspiracy (two counts), Terroristic Threats, Simple Assault and Receiving Stolen Property (two counts). (Resp's Ex. A at 1-5). These convictions stemmed from a series of car thefts and robberies committed in the City of Erie, one in which Petitioner pointed a gun at a 7-year-old boy and told his mother: "I will shoot him if you don't give us the money." (Resp's Ex. B at 6-8). Petitioner's minimum sentence expiration date was March 31, 2012, and his maximum sentence expiration date is March 31, 2034. (Resp's Ex. A).
On April 1, 2012, the Board released Petitioner on parole to an approved home plan. (Resp's Ex. C at 9-11). On February 27, 2013, he was arrested in the City of Pittsburgh and charged with the crimes of Firearms Not to Be Carried Without a License, Possession of a Firearm Prohibited, and Tampering With/Fabricating Physical Evidence. (Resp's Ex. D at 12-15). On April 12, 2013, the Board issued a decision to detain Petitioner pending the disposition of his new criminal charges. (Resp's Ex. E at 16-17).
On July 11, 2013, Petitioner entered a guilty plea to the new criminal charges. The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County sentenced him to a term of three to six years of incarceration to be followed by two years of probation. (Resp's Ex. F at 18-25). By a decision dated September 24, 2013, the Board notified Petitioner that he would be recommitted to a state corrections institution as a convicted parole violated to serve 24 months of backtime for committing the crimes at issue in his Allegheny County criminal case. In that same decision, the Board notified Petitioner that he would not be eligible for reparole until September 20, 2015, and that his parole violation maximum date is September 19, 2035. (Resp's Ex. G at 26-28).
As he neared his minimum sentence date, Petitioner applied for reparole. On July 7, 2015, the Board issued the decision at issue in this habeas case. The Board informed Petitioner that:
(Resp's Ex. H at 29-30).
Petitioner challenges the Board's July 7, 2015, decision in this action, which is governed by the federal habeas statute applicable to state prisoners, 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Under this statute, habeas relief is only available on the grounds that Petitioner is in custody in violation of his federal constitutional rights. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). Petitioner claims that the Board violated the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause in denying him parole.
Respondents have filed their answer. [ECF No. 10, 12]. Petitioner did not file a reply.
The federal habeas statute "requires that prisoners exhaust their claims in state court before seeking relief in federal courts."
The Fourteenth Amendment provides that the State may not "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV. An examination of a procedural due process claim under the Fourteenth Amendment proceeds in two steps.
To prevail on a substantive due process challenge to the Board's decision, Petitioner must establish that the decision shocks the conscience.
Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Board's decision lacked "some basis." As reflected in its July 7, 2015, decision, he was denied parole because based on an interview, a review of his file, and consideration of the matters set forth in the relevant state statute, the Board determined that releasing him on parole presented an unacceptable level of risk to the community. It also considered that reports and evaluations indicated his risk to the community, and that the prosecuting attorney gave a negative recommendation regarding parole. (Resp's Ex. H at 29-30). Although Petitioner disagrees with the Board's assessment of him, he has failed to direct the Court to any factor relied upon by the Board that could be described as "conscience shocking." Accordingly, there can be no finding that he is in custody in violation of his substantive due process rights.
Petitioner's equal protection claim also has no merit. The Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Petitioner has not asserted that the Board used a suspect classification in its decision-making process and he acknowledges in his brief [ECF No. 2 at 10] that in order to prevail on an equal protection claim, he must prove: (1) that the state treated him differently from others who were similarly situation; and (2) that the difference in treatment was not rationally related to any legitimate government interest.
As Respondents point out, the Board's decision is a discretionary one in which it is required by statute to consider the following factors when evaluating an inmate for parole:
61 Pa.C.S. § 6135.
The factors considered by the Board to deny Petitioner parole apply to all inmates, and the Board's decision is, necessarily, individualized. In such a setting, "no two prisoners, being different human beings, will possess identical backgrounds and characters. Indeed, it is difficult to believe that any two prisoners could ever be considered `similarly situated' for the purpose of judicial review on equal protection grounds of broadly discretionary decisions because such decisions may legitimately be informed by a broad variety of an individual's characteristics."
Section 102 of AEDPA, which is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 2253, governs the issuance of a certificate of appealability for appellate review of a district court's disposition of a habeas petition. It provides that "[a] certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." Where the district court has rejected a constitutional claim on its merits, "[t]he petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong."
For the reasons set forth above, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. Also, a certificate of appealability is denied. An appropriate Order follows.