Noah Winstead v. J. Rivello

Winstead · United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania · March 25, 2026 · No. 3:24-CV-01842

Summary

The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied Noah Winstead’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s denial of parole. The court held that Winstead had not shown that the Board’s repeated parole denials were arbitrary, irrational, or otherwise violated substantive due process. The court also denied a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

  1. A habeas petitioner challenging the denial of parole on constitutional grounds, other than an Ex Post Facto Clause claim, is not required to exhaust state-court remedies before seeking federal habeas review.
  2. A convicted person has no constitutional or inherent right to conditional release before expiration of a valid sentence, and Pennsylvania law does not create a liberty interest or clear legal right to parole.
  3. The petitioner's disagreement with the Board's factual assessments and repeated use of similar reasons for denying parole did not establish a substantive due process violation because he showed neither an impermissible basis nor arbitrary, irrational, or conscience-shocking decision-making.
  4. The Eighth Amendment does not require that a prisoner be released before the expiration of a valid prison term; therefore, the petitioner's Eighth Amendment theory did not warrant habeas relief.
  5. A certificate of appealability will not issue because reasonable jurists would not disagree with the denial of the petition.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Winstead was required to exhaust Pennsylvania state-court remedies before seeking federal habeas review of a parole denial challenged on constitutional due process grounds.
  2. Whether the Board's parole denials violated substantive due process because they were arbitrary, irrational, unsupported by evidence, or based on impermissible considerations.
  3. Whether the petitioner's Eighth Amendment theory entitled him to relief from the denial of parole.
  4. Whether a certificate of appealability should issue.

Disposition

writ_denied

Cases Cited (13)

  • DeFoy v. McCullough, 393 F.3d 439, 445 (3d Cir. 2005), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1149 (2005)(followed)
  • Shoop v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Parole, No. 1:25-CV-00943, 2025 WL 2178422, at *7-8 (M.D. Pa. July 31, 2025)(persuasive authority)
  • Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979)(followed)
  • Burkett v. Love, 89 F.3d 135, 139 (3d Cir. 1996)(followed)
  • Coady v. Vaughn, 770 A.2d 287, 289 (Pa. 2001)(followed)
  • Reider v. Commw. Pa. Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 514 A.2d 967, 971 (Pa. Cmwlth. Ct. 1986)(followed)
  • Block v. Potter, 631 F.2d 233, 236 (3d Cir. 1980)(followed)
  • Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 487 (3d Cir. 2001)(followed)
  • Hunterson v. DiSabato, 308 F.3d 236, 247 (3d Cir. 2002)(followed)
  • Urruita v. PA Atty. Gen., No. 4:13-CV-0577, 2014 WL 6982993, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 9, 2014)(followed)

Showing top 10 of 13.

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…