Stradford v. Wetzel
| Decision Date | 12 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION No. 16-2064 |
| Citation | 519 F.Supp.3d 214 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Parties | Lacey STRADFORD, et al. v. John WETZEL, Secretary Pennsylvania Department of Corrections |
Alexandra Morgan-Kurtz, PA Institutional Law Project, Donald Driscoll, Community Justice Project, Pittsburgh, PA, Su Ming Yeh, PA Institutional Law Project, Philadelphia, PA, for Lacey Stradford, William Nettles, Jesse Stroud, William Scott, Richard Richardson.
Kelly J. Hoke, Timothy A. Holmes, Office of General Counsel, PA Department of Corrections, Mechanicsburg, PA, for John Wetzel.
Juan R. Sánchez, C.J. Plaintiffs, Pennsylvania parolees with sex offense classifications, bring this putative class action and assert an equal protection claim against Defendant John Wetzel, the Secretary of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (the DOC). Plaintiffs claim that although they have been granted parole, their release from prison and placement into DOC-operated halfway houses has been significantly delayed because of the DOC's policy of considering community sensitivity to a criminal offense in making these placements. Because the consideration of community sensitivity disproportionately delays the placement of parolees with a sex offense classification, Plaintiffs have been subject to prolonged incarceration following a grant of parole which individuals without a sex offense classification do not have to endure. The parties now cross-move for summary judgment; the DOC arguing it has established a rational basis for delaying sex offender placement and Plaintiffs arguing the contrary. Because "mere negative attitudes, or fear," City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr. , 473 U.S. 432, 448, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985), do not justify treating sex offenders differently from other parolees in halfway house placement, and there is no other legitimate reason served by the DOC's treatment of sex offenders, the Court will grant Plaintiffs’ motion and deny the DOC's motion.
Plaintiffs Lacey Stradford, William Nettles, Jesse Stroud, William Scott, and Richard Richardson are all offenders with sex offense classifications who are, or were formerly, incarcerated in State Correctional Institutions in Pennsylvania.1 While incarcerated, Plaintiffs have been granted parole but have either not yet been released or have experienced delay in being released on parole. Plaintiffs, like all incarcerated individuals in Pennsylvania, are statutorily eligible for parole after serving their minimum sentence as fixed by their sentencing judge. The Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole (the PBPP) investigates all individuals eligible for parole. In deciding whether to grant parole, the PBPP considers several factors, including the nature and circumstances of the offense, the recommendations of the judge and prosecuting attorney, the character and background of the individual, the individual's conduct in prison and participation in treatment, the individual's physical and mental condition, and the individual's complete criminal record. The PBPP also considers the positive recommendation of the DOC, an individual's demonstrated motivation for success, and whether the individual has accepted responsibility for the offense committed.
Individuals with sex offense classifications are subject to additional requirements as part of the parole process. Prior to being considered for parole, sex offenders must complete a sex offender treatment program. See Def.’s Statement of Material Facts ¶ 13.2 At the time of parole consideration, the Pennsylvania Sex Offenders Assessment Board, consisting of psychiatrists, psychologists, criminal justice experts, and behavior and treatment professionals, evaluates each sex offender.
After considering and evaluating each individual, the PBPP must decide whether to grant a "positive parole action," which essentially grants the individual parole subject to certain requirements. Parole is granted when the PBPP determines that the best interests of the individual justify or require that parole be granted and the interests of the Commonwealth will not be injured by the individual's parole. The PBPP evaluates individuals convicted of a violent offense "at a more stringent standard than non-violent offenses." Making Parole Decisions, Pa. Parole Board, https://www.parole.pa.gov/Parole% 20Process/Making% 20Parole% 20Decisions/Pages/default.aspx (last visited Feb. 10, 2021). A positive parole action is granted if the PBPP finds "there is no reasonable indication that the individual poses a risk to public safety." Am. Compl. ¶ 7; Ans. ¶ 7.
When the PBPP grants parole, it is typically with the condition that the individual have an "approved home plan." See Pinard Decl. ¶ 7, ECF No. 75-3. This approved home plan can be a personal approved residence or placement in a DOC-operated halfway house. Due to the difficulty in finding an approved residence and obtaining sufficient money to cover rent and other costs of living, most individuals must rely on placement in a halfway house to be released on parole pursuant to an approved home plan. Thus, halfway house placement is often a condition of the grant of parole.
The DOC operates halfway houses known as Community Corrections Centers or Community Contract Facilities (collectively, CCCs).3 CCCs are governed and operated by the DOC's Bureau of Community Corrections (the BCC). The BCC places individuals in and discharges them from any and all CCCs. The BCC's goal is to assist parolees and reentrants with their transition into society. The BCC decides whether a parolee is placed in a CCC, which CCC the parolee is placed, and when that placement occurs.
The DOC and BCC's policy regarding CCC placement has evolved over the life of this case. In 2016, when this case was initiated, the policy treated parolees with a sex offense classification differently from other parolees without that classification. Under that policy, sex offenders who received positive parole actions were precluded from CCC placement until 24 months before their maximum sentence date, unlike other parolees without sex offense classifications who were placed upon receiving a positive parole action. Sex offenders were regularly designated as "hard to place," rejected for CCC placement at the time of their initial application once being granted parole, and required to reapply for placement after waiting until 24 months before their maximum sentence date. Despite being granted parole, the policy effectively kept parolees with sex offense classifications incarcerated for longer periods of time because they were unable to secure approved housing outside of CCC placement. This policy was the subject of the DOC's first motion to dismiss and the Court's March 31, 2017, Memorandum and Order granting the motion and dismissing Plaintiffs’ claims.
Plaintiffs subsequently appealed the dismissal to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals and the DOC altered the policy regarding CCC placement for the first time. While the appeal was pending in 2017, the DOC removed the 24-month limitation as applied to parolees with sex offense classifications. Rather than requiring sex offenders to wait until 24 months before their maximum sentence date for CCC placement, the DOC developed a plan to place sex offenders in the "Progress CCC," a 25-bed CCC used to reintegrate sex offenders into the community. The DOC states it developed this plan to "alleviate the backlog of paroled sex offenders in the institutions" and provide them with 60–90 days of meals and programming. See Pinard Decl. ¶ 33, ECF No. 75-3. The parties dispute whether release to Progress CCC constitutes continued incarceration or release on parole. After spending the requisite time in Progress CCC, sex offenders were released or transferred to another CCC. See id.
The policy again changed in 2018 when the DOC began reducing its use of Progress CCC to house sex offenders. And in August 2019, the DOC decided to discontinue its use of Progress CCC to house sex offenders altogether. The last sex offender housed at Progress CCC was released on October 10, 2019. At this time, the DOC contends that it has no intention of using Progress CCC to house sex offenders prior to release to other CCCs.
Regardless of the changing policy regarding CCC placement of sex offenders, the BCC makes several considerations to determine whether one receives a placement, where that placement will be, and when the placement will begin. Upon receiving a referral for CCC placement, the BCC follows the DOC's policy 8.1.1, Section 4 in making decisions about whether and where to place a parolee. This policy states:
Def.’s Ex. B, ECF No. 75-3 (emphasis added). The policy has been in effect since November 21, 2017.
Under the most current version of the policy, there is no longer the 24-month limitation for CCC placement and the BCC no longer uses the "hard to place" designation. See Pinard Decl. ¶ 16, ECF No. 75-3. If a sex offender is denied CCC placement, the BCC's denial letter now informs the offender to reapply after a specified date or if circumstances change.4
Even under this new policy, parolees with sex...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Stradford v. Sec'y Pa. Dep't of Corr.
...filed an amended complaint challenging the new policy and the District Court found the suit not moot. See Stradford v. Wetzel , 519 F. Supp. 3d 214, 223 n.6 (E.D. Pa. 2021). The District Court said its former decision was in error. Id. at 230. It held that paroled sex offenders are similarl......
- United States v. Spencer