Michael J. Pendleton v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, Pennsylvania Attorney General’s Office, and Warden of SCI-Somerset

Summary

The United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania denied Michael J. Pendleton’s amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court rejected his substantive due process, equal protection, and related challenges to the Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole’s denial of parole, concluding that the Board had identified permissible bases for its decision. The court also declined to issue a certificate of appealability.

Holdings

1. A federal habeas court may deny an unexhausted claim on the merits when the claim plainly fails, and therefore the court did not need to determine whether DeFoy remained controlling or whether Pendleton had exhausted his state remedy.
2. The Board’s denial of parole did not violate substantive due process because the reasons cited were legally permissible and the decision was supported by multiple rational bases; the Board’s conduct was not conscience-shocking or otherwise constitutionally arbitrary.
3. Pendleton failed to establish an equal protection violation because his assertion that other juvenile lifers received parole did not show that those individuals were similarly situated in all relevant respects or that the Board acted on an impermissible classification.
4. No certificate of appealability should issue because Pendleton failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and reasonable jurists would not find the court’s merits assessment debatable or wrong.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the court could deny the habeas petition on the merits without resolving whether Pendleton had exhausted available Pennsylvania remedies.
2. Whether the Board’s consideration of the nature of the offense, lack of remorse, negative judicial and prosecutorial recommendations, and alleged lack of motivation for success violated substantive due process.
3. Whether Pendleton established an equal protection violation by alleging that other juvenile lifers, including a co-defendant, received parole.
4. Whether Pendleton was entitled to a certificate of appealability.

Disposition

dismissed