MCGEE v. PHILADELPHIA COUNTY, PA, 2:16-cv-05501

Background

McGee, a convicted sex offender, had two parole revocations (late 2015 and mid-2016) and sued 17 Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 challenging the revocations and treatment at a re‑entry center (Coleman Hall).
After a Coleman Hall staff member allegedly overheard McGee make a threat, McGee was arrested based on an email and a Resident Infraction Report relayed to parole officer Gregory Thomas; McGee objected to the hearsay evidence at a probable‑cause hearing and at a revocation hearing.
McGee alleges due process violations from the Board’s use of hearsay and from the Board’s alleged failure to file a constitutional oath; he also alleges Eighth Amendment cruel‑and‑unusual‑punishment, false arrest, supervisory liability, and § 1985 conspiracy claims.
Most defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6); the court considered pleadings and attached parole‑proceeding exhibits.
The court dismissed McGee’s § 1983 claims that would invalidate the revocations under the favorable‑termination (Heck) rule, dismissed Eighth Amendment and false‑arrest/supervisory claims in part, and dismissed claims against adjudicators and the Board on immunity grounds (with limited leave to amend one supervisory claim).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 1983 may attack Board’s use of hearsay at revocation (procedural due process)	McGee: hearsay admission violated due process of revocation	Defs: claim attacks fact/duration of confinement and must be pursued via habeas (Heck/favorable‑termination)	Dismissed under favorable‑termination; may refile §1983 only if revocation later invalidated
Whether Board’s failure to file statutory/constitutional oath voids revocation authority	McGee: absence of oath deprived Board of authority, violating due process	Defs: same Heck/favorable‑termination bar; immunity/authority not dependent on oath for Eleventh Amendment analysis	Dismissed under favorable‑termination; cannot pursue in §1983 now
Whether Thomas’s restrictions at Coleman Hall amount to Eighth Amendment violation	McGee: transfer denial, forced GEO program, limited family time constituted cruel and unusual punishment	Thomas: actions were routine parole conditions, not deprivation of basic human needs	Dismissed with prejudice — allegations insufficient for Eighth Amendment claim
Whether Thomas (and supervisors) lacked probable cause for arrest (false arrest)	McGee: arrest was without probable cause; relied on unreliable hearsay email/report	Thomas: had a detailed Resident Infraction Report relayed through supervisors; probable cause can rest on hearsay with substantial basis for crediting it	False‑arrest claim dismissed with prejudice — court finds substantial basis to credit hearsay and probable cause existed
Whether adjudicators and Board members may be sued in personal/official capacities for revocation decisions	McGee: Board members abused discretion, are liable supervisors; oath issue undermines immunity	Defs: adjudicatory actors entitled to absolute immunity; state actors in official capacity are protected by Eleventh Amendment	Claims against hearing examiners and Board members dismissed with prejudice on absolute and Eleventh Amendment immunity; supervisory claim against Board members dismissed without prejudice for failure to plead specific custom/practice (leave to amend)

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (a complaint must state a plausible claim)
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard: more than labels and conclusions)
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (relief challenging fact or duration of confinement belongs in habeas)
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (favorable‑termination rule for § 1983 attacking conviction/sentence)
Williams v. Consovoy, 453 F.3d 173 (3d Cir.) (parole revocation challenges controlled by favorable‑termination rule)
Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825 (Eighth Amendment objective standard for cruel and unusual punishment)
Wilson v. Rackmill, 878 F.2d 772 (absolute immunity for adjudicatory probation/parole duties)
United States v. Ventresca, 380 U.S. 102 (hearsay may support probable cause if substantial basis for crediting it)
Butterfield v. Bail, 120 F.3d 1023 (9th Cir.) (parole denial implicates continued confinement)
Patzig v. O’Neil, 577 F.2d 841 (false arrest/constitutional arrest standards)
Groman v. Township of Manalapan, 47 F.3d 628 (probable cause standard: fair probability)
Quern v. Jordan, 440 U.S. 332 (§ 1983 does not abrogate state Eleventh Amendment immunity)
Lavia v. Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corrections, 224 F.3d 190 (state waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity)
Brown v. Muhlenberg Township, 269 F.3d 205 (elements of supervisory liability under § 1983)