Darryl Powell v. Ralph Weiss
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 12822
| 3rd Cir. | 2014Background
- Powell, a former Pennsylvania inmate, sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging due process violations when prerelease status and transfer to a community correctional center were revoked.
- DOC recalculated Powell’s sentence after a judge advised consecutive terms, leading to denial of prerelease without notice or a hearing.
- Powell remained imprisoned for about 17 more months before transfer; he later obtained prerelease status again but contends the revocation violated his liberty interests.
- Commonwealth Court later recalculated Powell’s sentence, affecting his parole supervision period and maximum sentence date; Powell argued further liberty interests in that supervision.
- The District Court dismissed Weiss (DOC employee) claims for lack of due process and sua sponte based on Heck v. Humphrey; Powell appealed.
- The Third Circuit affirmed dismissal, holding Powell had no independent or state-created liberty interest in prerelease status and that supervision claim against Weiss could not proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Powell have a protectable liberty interest in prerelease status? | Powell had an independent or state-created liberty interest in prerelease | No liberty interest as prerelease is a conditional benefit | No protectable liberty interest exists |
| Does Powell have a state-created liberty interest in prerelease status under Flores/Winsett framework? | Flores/Winsett create liberty interest in prerelease when criteria are met | Sandin framework limits to atypical hardships, not prerelease; Flores/Winsett no longer controlling | No state-created liberty interest established |
| Was Powell’s claim about prerelease revocation governed by Heck v. Humphrey? | Heck bars or limits the claim since it relates to release | Heck bars claims only when they attack the validity of confinement; his sentence was not directly attacked here | Heck did not bar the claim; but dismissal affirmed on lack of state-created/independent liberty interest |
| Can Powell state a claim for wrongful parole supervision against Weiss as a DOC employee? | Wrongful parole supervision violated due process | Board of Probation and Parole—not DOC—controls supervision; Weiss cannot be liable | Claim against Weiss properly dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (U.S. 1995) (state-created liberty interests are limited to atypical, significant hardship)
- Shoats v. Horn, 213 F.3d 140 (3d Cir. 2000) (adopts Sandin standard for prison conditions liberty interests)
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1972) (parole rights and core liberty values protected by due process)
- Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14 (U.S. 1981) (anticipation of parole does not create a constitutional liberty interest)
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1979) (case-by-case approach to state-created interests; mandatory language not required)
- Winsett v. McGinnes, 617 F.2d 996 (3d Cir. 1980) (discretionary programs may create liberty interests if criteria are codified)
- Flores v. Cuyler, 511 F. Supp. 386 (E.D. Pa. 1981) (prerelease status may create due process rights when state creates specific criteria)
- Powell v. Pa. Dep’t of Corr., 14 A.3d 912 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2011) (Commonwealth Court decision on sentence calculation affecting liberty)