Strzelczyk v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-14-2368
| Decision Date | 13 January 2015 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:CV-14-2368 |
| Parties | GEORGE STRZELCZYK, Petitioner v. PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF PROBATION AND PAROLE, et al., Respondents |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Middle District of Pennsylvania |
(Judge Nealon)
Petitioner, George Strzelczyk, an inmate currently confined in the State Correctional Institution, Waymart, Pennsylvania, filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361. (Doc. 1, petition). He challenges the denial of parole by the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole ("the Board"). Id. Specifically, Petitioner states that "by law Penna Parole is a privilege, therefore, any law the PBPP uses to denie [sic] parole is a glaring constitutional violation." Id. On the basis of the assertion that he has a "right" to be paroled, Petitioner now seeks a writ of mandamus directing the parole board to release him on parole. Id. For the reasons set forth below, the petition will be dismissed.
The following background has been extracted from this Court's January 15, 2013, Memorandum and Order denying Petitioner's challenge to the Parole Board'sJanuary 9, 2010 and June 23, 2011 denials of parole. See Strzelczyk v. Pa. Bd. Of Probation and Parole, 2013 WL 154397 (M.D. Pa. 2013).
On July 8, 1987, after a jury trial conducted in the Court of Common Pleas of Monroe County, Petitioner was convicted of rape, statutory rape, incest, involuntary deviate sexual intercourse, indecent assault, indecent exposure, endangering welfare of children, and corruption of minors. He was sentenced to a fifteen (15) to thirty (30) year term of imprisonment. He was permitted to remain on bail pending appeal.
Petitioner subsequently absconded, his bail was revoked, and a bench warrant was issued for his arrest. He was not taken into custody and did not being serving his term of incarceration until the year 1995.
On January 9, 2010, the Board reviewed, and denied, Petitioner's application for parole based on the following:
On December 9, 2010, Petitioner filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. On January 28, 2011, the Board filed preliminary objections to the petition for writ of mandamus.
On February 1, 2011, the Commonwealth Court entered an order sustaining the Board's preliminary objections to improper service, lack of verification, and paragraphing; and directed Petitioner to file and properly serve an amended petition for review within thirty (30) days, or the case would be dismissed.
On February 10, 2011, Petitioner filed an amended petition for review. He did not, however, serve the amended petition for review in compliance with the Commonwealth Court's February 1, 2011 Order, or Pennsylvania Rule of Appellate Procedure 1514(c).
By Order dated February 24, 2011, the Commonwealth Court dismissed the amended petition for writ of mandamus for failure to comply with th Court's February 1, 2011 Order. Petitioner then filed a notice of appeal to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.
On September 28, 2011, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the Commonwealth Court's Order of dismissal.
On June 23, 2011, the Board again reviewed, and denied, Petitioner's application for parole, based on the following:
On January 31, 2012, Petitioner filed a federal habeas corpus petition, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, in which he raised the following grounds for relief:
By Memorandum and Order dated January 15, 2013, this Court dismissedPetitioner's Ex Post Facto claim for failure to seek final administrative review and exhaust state court remedies, and denied Petitioner's Due Process challenge to the Board's decisions. See Strzelczyk v. Pa. Bd. Of Probation and Parole, 2013 WL 154397 (M.D. Pa. 2013).
On June 24, 2013, the Board again reviewed, and denied, his application for parole, based on the following:
Petitioner then filed a petition for writ of mandamus in the CommonwealthCourt of Pennsylvania, whose denial of the petition was affirmed on November 19, 2014, by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. See (Doc. 1 at 15, Order).
On December 15, 2014, Petitioner filed the instant petition for writ of mandamus, seeking release on parole. (Doc. 1, petition).
There is a statutory obligation to conduct a preliminary review of pro se complaints which seek redress against government officials. Specifically, the court is obliged to review the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A which provides, in pertinent part:
Under Section 1915 A, it must be assessed whether a pro se complaint "fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted." This statutory text mirrors the language of Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which providesthat a complaint should be dismissed for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6).
With respect to this benchmark standard for legal sufficiency of a complaint, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has aptly noted the evolving standards governing pleading practice in federal court, stating that:
Standards of pleading have been in the forefront of jurisprudence in recent years. Beginning with the Supreme Court's opinion in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) continuing with our opinion in Phillips [v. County of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 230 (3d Cir. 2008) ]and culminating recently with the Supreme Court's decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal —— U.S. ——, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) pleading standards have seemingly shifted from simple notice pleading to a more heightened form of pleading, requiring a plaintiff to plead more than the possibility of relief to survive a motion to dismiss.
Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside, 578 F.3d 203, 209-10 (3d Cir. 2009).
In considering whether a complaint fails to state a claim upon...
To continue reading
Request your trial