Powell v. Weiss

Citation757 F.3d 338
Decision Date08 July 2014
Docket NumberNo. 13–2354.,13–2354.
PartiesDarryl POWELL, Appellant v. Ralph WEISS; Diane Yale; John E. Wetzel, Secretary; Michael C. Potteiger, Chairman of the Board; John Doe.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Brian J. Zeiger, [Argued], Levin & Zeiger, Philadelphia, PA, Attorney for Appellant.

Laura J. Neal, [Argued], Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, Mechanicsburg, PA, Attorney for Appellees Ralph Weiss, Diane Yale and Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.

Alan M. Robinson, [Argued], Pennsylvania Board of Probation & Parole Harrisburg, PA, Attorney for Appellee Michael Potteiger.

Before: AMBRO, HARDIMAN and GREENAWAY, JR., Circuit Judges.

OPINION

HARDIMAN, Circuit Judge.

At issue in this appeal is whether Pennsylvania inmates have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the expectation of release to a community correctional center. We hold they do not.

I

Appellant Darryl Powell is a former Pennsylvania state inmate whose suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 was dismissed by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The gravamen of Powell's complaint was that the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (DOC) violated his Fourteenth Amendment right not to be deprived of liberty without due process of law when it revoked its decision to release him to a community correctional center. The DOC concedes that the revocation was based on an improper calculation of Powell's sentence.

Most of the prolix details underlying Powell's interactions with the Pennsylvania criminal justice system are not germane to the question presented here, so we recite only the essential facts.

In July 2002, Powell was sentenced in three separate criminal actions before two judges of the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas. Thereafter, Powell challenged the DOC's calculation of his overall prison term in the Pennsylvania intermediate appellate courts, contending that his sentences should run concurrently, not consecutively. Powell's term was then recalculated, and based on that recalculation, he was granted prerelease status and scheduled for transfer to a community correctional center—an extension of the state correctional system designed to reintegrate inmates into the community—on February 12, 2007. Appellee Ralph Weiss, a DOC employee who was sued in his individual capacity,1 processed the paperwork for Powell's transfer, during which time he reviewed Powell's sentence calculation in accordance with standard DOC procedure. As part of his review, Weiss sought clarification, and one of the judges who presided over Powell's criminal cases advised Weiss by letter dated February 8, 2007—just four days prior to Powell's scheduled transfer—that his sentences were to run consecutively. In accordance with this response, Weiss recalculated Powell's overall prison term, which resulted in Powell being denied prerelease without notice or a hearing. Although Powell eventually was granted prerelease status in July 2008 and transferred to a community correctional center, he alleged he was deprived of a protected liberty interest during the approximately seventeen months that he remained incarcerated before his transfer.

In 2009, Powell filed a petition for writ of mandamus in which he asked the Commonwealth Court to compel the DOC to reduce his prison term by running his three sentences concurrently. While that petition was pending, Powell was paroled from the DOC's custody on August 31, 2009. Over a year later, in January 2011, the Commonwealth Court issued a writ of mandamus after holding that Powell's trial judge had no authority to modify his sentence with her February 8, 2007, letter to the DOC. See Commonwealth of Pa. ex rel. Powell v. Pa. Dep't of Corr., 14 A.3d 912, 913–14 (Pa.Commw.Ct.2011). Pursuant to the Commonwealth Court's order, the DOC recalculated Powell's sentence, which resulted in a maximum sentence date of May 22, 2012. This recalculation gave rise to Powell's claim that he was deprived of another liberty interest when he was supervised as a parolee by the Board of Probation and Parole until December 2012, some seven months beyond the appropriate date.

The District Court dismissed Powell's complaint against Weiss for two reasons. First, it held that Weiss's miscalculation of Powell's sentence did not violate due process because Powell had no liberty interest in his prerelease status and his anticipated transfer to a community correctional facility. Second, although the Court held that Powell's unwarranted parole supervision did deprive him of a cognizable liberty interest, it determined sua sponte that this claim was precluded by the favorable termination rule of Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).

Powell timely appealed.

II

The District Court had subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. We have jurisdiction over its final order under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.

We review the District Court's dismissal order de novo. James v. City of Wilkes–Barre, 700 F.3d 675, 679 (3d Cir.2012). In doing so, we “accept all factual allegations as true, construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, and determine whether, under any reasonable reading of the complaint, the plaintiff may be entitled to relief.” Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 231 (3d Cir.2008) (citation omitted).

III

On appeal, Powell maintains that he had a protected liberty interest in his prerelease status and anticipated transfer to a community correctional center. Thus, he contends that the District Court erred when it held that Weiss's miscalculation—and the subsequent revocation of his prerelease status—did not violate his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law.

We sympathize with Powell because he was understandably disappointed when his anticipated transfer to a community correctional center was rescinded through no fault of his own. Though Powell pleaded no facts to this effect, the parties presume that residents of community correctional centers enjoy greater privileges and relaxed restrictions compared to those who remain incarcerated in state correctional facilities. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court has “reject[ed] ... the notion that any grievous loss visited upon a person by the State is sufficient to invoke the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause.” Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14, 17, 102 S.Ct. 31, 70 L.Ed.2d 13 (1981) (quoting Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 224, 96 S.Ct. 2532, 49 L.Ed.2d 451 (1976)) (internal quotation marks omitted). Instead, our inquiry concerns “not merely the ‘weight’ of the individual's interest, but whether the nature of the interest is one within the contemplation of the ‘liberty or property language of the Fourteenth Amendment.’ Id. (quoting Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 481, 92 S.Ct. 2593, 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972)). Protected liberty interests “arise either from the Due Process Clause or from state-created statutory entitlement.” Fraise v. Terhune, 283 F.3d 506, 522 (3d Cir.2002) (quoting Shoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140, 143 (3d Cir.2000)). We have characterized the former as an “independent due process liberty interest” and the latter as a “state-created liberty interest.” Renchenski v. Williams, 622 F.3d 315, 325 (3d Cir.2010). We shall consider each liberty interest in turn.

A

With respect to an inmate's independent due process liberty interest, the Supreme Court has held:

As long as the conditions or degree of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected is within the sentence imposed upon him and is not otherwise violative of the Constitution, the Due Process Clause does not in itself subject an inmate's treatment by prison authorities to judicial oversight.

Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976); Asquith v. Dep't of Corr., 186 F.3d 407, 410 (3d Cir.1999). Thus, due process is implicated “when severe changes in conditions of confinement amount to a grievous loss that should not be imposed without the opportunity for notice and an adequate hearing.” Renchenski, 622 F.3d at 325 (finding that due process must be afforded before sex offender conditions may be imposed on an inmate who was not convicted of a sexual offense); see also Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 487, 100 S.Ct. 1254, 63 L.Ed.2d 552 (1980) (holding that a prisoner convicted of robbery may not be involuntarily transferred to a mental hospital without process). Unlike Renchenski and Vitek, here Weiss's administrative error resulted in no change to Powell's conditions of confinement; although Powell had been scheduled for transfer, he had not actually been released to the community correctional center. Accordingly, he remained in confinement in accordance with his sentence.

On appeal, Powell emphasizes that his case involves the revocation, not the mere denial, of his prerelease status, and that a protected liberty interest attached once that status was granted. Powell's argument is not without force, as the Supreme Court has held that a Fourteenth Amendment interest may arise once an inmate is granted a substantial, albeit conditional, freedom. See Morrissey, 408 U.S. at 482, 92 S.Ct. 2593 (noting that “the liberty of a parolee, although indeterminate, includes many of the core values of unqualified liberty” entitled to protection by the Fourteenth Amendment). But the Supreme Court has also clarified that an inmate's mere anticipation of freedom, when a privilege has been granted but not yet implemented, does not give rise to a constitutionally recognized liberty interest. Jago, 454 U.S. at 21–22, 102 S.Ct. 31.

Indeed, the Supreme Court's decision in Jago, which concerned a prison's revocation of its promise of parole, governs our analysis in Powell's case. There, the inmate had been informed he would be released on parole, and pursuant to the parole board's order, completed prison prerelease classes and was measured for civilian clothes....

To continue reading

Request your trial
81 cases
  • Mathews v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, Civil Action No. 14-00024
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • January 14, 2015
    ...88, 97 S.Ct. 274, 50 L.Ed.2d 236 (1976); Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976); Powell v. Weiss, 757 F.3d 338, 342 (3d Cir. 2014) (quoting Montanye, 427 U.S. at 242 for the proposition that "[a]s long as the conditions or degree of confinement to which ......
  • In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • August 21, 2017
    ...the plaintiff may be entitled to relief." Bronowicz v. Allegheny County , 804 F.3d 338, 344 (3d Cir. 2015) (quoting Powell v. Weiss , 757 F.3d 338, 341 (3d Cir. 2014) ). As part of that review, we may consider documents "integral to or explicitly referred to in the complaint" without turnin......
  • Johnston v. Wetzel
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • December 27, 2019
    ...prison life." Shoats v. Horn , 213 F.3d 140, 144 (3d Cir. 2000). See also Williams , 848 F.3d at 560 (quoting Shoats ); Powell v. Weiss , 757 F.3d 338, 346 (3d Cir. 2014) (noting that Shoats is the governing standard). Employing that two-step inquiry in Shoats , the Court of Appeals determi......
  • Porter v. Pa. Dep't of Corr.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Third Circuit
    • September 1, 2020
    ...inmate may reasonably expect to encounter as a result of his or her conviction in accordance with due process of law." Powell v. Weiss , 757 F.3d 338, 344 (3d Cir. 2014) (citation omitted).In Sandin , the plaintiff challenging his solitary confinement did not have a protected liberty intere......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT