United States Third Circuit

In an inmate's pro se civil action under 42 U.S.C. section 1983 against various officials of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, claiming that the Parole Board violated his First Amendment right, his right to due process, and the Ex Post Facto Clause by using his refusal to admit his guilt to adversely affect his eligibility for parole, a dismissal of the complaint is affirmed where: 1) plaintiff's First Amendment claim was properly dismissed as the prison may structure its treatment programs and pursue legitimate penological objectives from that standpoint; 2) plaintiff's substantive due process claim was properly dismissed because the Parole Board's alleged conduct was not arbitrary and did not shock the conscience; 3) plaintiff's procedural due process claim was properly dismissed; and 4) district court properly dismissed plaintiff's Ex Post Facto claim as he cannot show that the Parole Board's alleged retroactive application of a statute, which provides that certain sex offenders shall attend and participate in a Department of Corrections program of counseling or therapy, created a significant risk of increasing his punishment.

Appellate Information

• Argued 04/15/2010
• Decided 08/16/2010
• Published 08/16/2010

Judges

• SLOVITER

Court

• United States Third Circuit

Counsel

• For Appellant:
  
• Thomas S. Jones, Thomas W. Corbett, Jr.