Barge v. PENN. BD. OF PROBATION AND PAROLE
39 A.3d 530
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Petitioners are current/former state inmates convicted of sex offenses/paroled but denied CCC placement; sue Board and DOC seeking mandamus and injunctive relief.
- They allege DOC/Board policies deny transitional housing to sex offenders, and lack uniform, evidence-based home-plan standards.
- Petition asserts DOC and Board breach duties under Parole Act and constitutional equal protection, citing failures to provide home plans, CCC beds, and timely parole release.
- Board allegedly uses residency ordinances and community opposition to limit CCC beds for sex offenders, impairing reintegration.
- Petitioners claim Board/DOC failures cause irreparable harm and violate statutory duties to timely and efficiently administer parole and community reintegration.
- Board and DOC raise preliminary objections challenging the sufficiency of the complaint and the rights to relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal protection of sex offenders vs others | Barge et al. | Board/DOC rational basis justify sex-offender treatment | Rational basis; claims sustainable |
| Does DOC interfere with Board's parole duties | Petitioners allege DOC obstructs Board’s exclusive power | Board and DOC have distinct statutory roles; no interference | Dismissal of DOC as party on mandamus claims |
| Board's duty to contract for supplemental services | Board must contract to supplement services for parolees | Statutory duty only to purchase/supplement existing programs, not create new CCCs | Not required to contract for additional CCCs beyond DOC facilities |
| Board's denial of home plans and need for reasons | Board denied home plans without written reasons, lacks uniform, evidence-based standards | Board has discretion; not obligated to provide written reasons | Board must provide written reasons for denials and apply uniform standards |
| Evidence-based practices in home-plan decisions | Board must use evidence-based standards | Evidence-based practices defined in statute; must apply appropriately | Statutory definition of evidence-based practices governs, no extra standard shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Nievas v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation & Parole, 983 A.2d 236 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2009) (before release, no CCC bed due process right)
- Turner v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole, 749 A.2d 1018 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000) (Board lacks authority to place in pre-release centers; DOC controls placement)
- Boyd v. Ward, 802 A.2d 705 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2002) (parole denial decision must include reasons)
- Wheeler v. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 862 A.2d 127 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2004) (parole system priorities include public safety restrictions)
- Cleburne Living Ctr. v. Cleburne, 473 U.S. 432 (1985) (rational basis standard; not all distinctions require heightened scrutiny)
- Chapman v. United States, 500 U.S. 453 (1991) (nature of crime distinctions generally do not imply heightened scrutiny)
- Dantzler v. Tennis, 2008 WL 4274486 (E.D. Pa. 2008) (federal equal protection dismissal for sex offender CCC placement claims)
- Morganelli v. Casey, 163 Pa.Cmwlth. 538, 641 A.2d 674 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994) (mandamus timing not present where statute lacks explicit deadline)