2005 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 7-7-2005 

# Mick e ns -Thom a s v

. M ar t ine z P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 04-3843

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2005 D e c i sion s b y an authori z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Micke n s -Thom as v

. M ar t inez " (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 885. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/885NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL

U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

N O . 04- 3843 LO U I S M I CK EN S- TH O M A S, A ppel l ant v. B E N JA M IN A . M A R T IN E Z , C H A IR M A N , P E N N S Y L V A N IA BO AR D OF P RO BA T I ON AND P AR OL E , I N HI S OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y; LAR RY POLG AR , DI STRI CT D I RECTO R, ALLEN TOW N D I STRI CT O FF I CE, P E NNS YL VANI A B OAR D OF P RO BA T I ON AND P AR OL E , I N HI S OF F I CI AL CA PACI TY; J OSEPH SM I TH, DI STRI CT D I RECTO R, SCRAN TON OFFI CE, P E N N S Y L V A N IA B O A R D O F P R O B A T IO N A N D P A R O L E , IN H IS OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y; RA YM OND J . DADI GAN, CE NT RA L RE GI ONAL DI RECTO R, PENN SYLV AN I A B OA RD OF PROB ATI ON AN D PA RO LE, I N HI S OF F I CI AL CA P AC I T Y; BR I AN E L L I OT T , DI RE CT OR , DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RR E CT I ONS , AL L E NT OWN COMM UNI T Y C OR RE CT I ONS CE NT E R I N HI S OFF I CI AL C APA CI TY O n A p p ea l from the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt f o r th e E a ste rn D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( D . C . C i vi l N o. 04- cv- 01615) D i s tr i ctJ udge: H on. R onal d L . B uckw al t er Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J une 15, 2005 B efor e: SL O V I T E R , M cK E E and R O SE N N , C i r cui tJ udges ( Fi l ed J ul y7, 2005 )2 OP I NI ON SL O V I T E R , C i r cui tJ udge. A ppel l antL oui s M i ckens - T hom as ( “Thom as ”) appea l s fr om the or derof the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC our tforthe East ern D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a deny i ng hi s m ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on. T he A ppel l ees ar e B enj ami n A . M art i nez, the C hai r m an of the Penns y l vani a B oar d of Pr obat i on and Par ol e ( “B oar d”) , L arryPol gar , the D i s tr i ct D i r ect orof the B oar d’ s A l l ent ow n offi ce, J os eph Sm i th, the D i s tr i ctD i r ect orof the B oar d’ s Scr ant on offi ce, R aym ond D adi gan, the B oar d’ s C entr al R egi onal D i r ect or , and B ri an E l l i ot, an o ffi ci al w i th the Pen nsy l van i a D epart m ent of C orr ect i on s. T he D i s tr i ctC our thad j ur i s di ct i on under28 U . S. C . §§ 1331, 1343; thi s courthas ju risd ictio n p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 2 (a )(1 ). F o r th e re a so n s e x p lain e d b e lo w , w e w ill a f f i r m. I. W e have pr evi ous l ys etfor th i n gr eatdet ai l the under l y i ng fac t s of thi s cas e. See M icke n s-T h o m as v . V au g h n , 3 5 5 F . 3 d 2 9 4 (3d C ir . 2 0 0 4 ) (“M icke n s-T h o m as II”); M i cken s- T ho m as v. V aug hn , 32 1 F . 3d 37 4 (3d C i r. 20 03 ) ( “M i cken s- T ho m as I ”). T hu s, w e w i l l r ecountonl ys uch det ai l as i s nece s s aryforr es ol vi ng the i ns t antdi s put e. T hom as r ece i ved a s ent ence of m andat oryl i fe i n pr i s on forthe 1964 r ape a nd m ur derof a tw el ve- y ear - ol d gi r l . M i ckens - T hom as I , 321 F. 3d at376. I n 1995, the Penns y l vani a G overnorcomm ut ed Thom as ’ m andat oryl i fe s ent ence t o a t erm of “313

y e a rs , 9 m o n th s , 6 d a y s to lif e ,” th e re b yre n d e ri n g T h o m a s e lig ib le f o r r e le a s e o n p a ro le . M icke n s-T h o m as II, 3 5 5 F . 3 d at 29 6 (i n terna l qu o tat ion s o m itted). A lth o u g h T h o m as th ere af ter m ad e se v era l app li ca ti o n s fo r pa role, th e B o ard deni ed them al l . M i ckens - T hom as I I , 355 F. 3d at296- 98. A s a r es ul t , T hom as i nvoked th e j u r i s d i c t i o n o f

th e f e d e r a l c o u r t s a n d a p p l i e d f o ra w r i to f

h a b e a s c o rp u s . E v e n tu a l l y, th is c o u rt f

o u n d th a t th e B o a rd h a d v io late d T h o m a s’ r ig h ts u n d e r th e E x P o st F a c to C l aus e of the U ni t ed St at es C ons t i tut i on, s ee U . S. C ons t . art . I , § 10 cl . 1, beca us e i thad a p p l i e d th e s t a n d a r d s g o v e r n i n g p a r o l e a p p l i c a b l e a f t e ra 1 9 9 6 s t a tu t o ryr e v i s i o n . We ther efor e gr ant ed Thom as condi t i onal r el i ef on hi s m ot i on forhabea s corpus and di r ect ed the D i s tr i ctC our tt o r emand t he mat t ert o the B oar d forfur therpr ocee di ngs cons i s t ent w ith o u r m an d ate. M icke n s-T h o m as I, 32 1 F . 3 d at 39 3 . T h e D istri ct C o u rtin turn r emanded T hom as ’ par ol e appl i cat i on t o the B oar d fora hea r i ng pur s uantt o the pr e- 1996 s t andar ds of the governi ng par ol e s t atut e. O n r emand, the B oar d agai n deni ed Thom as ’ appl i cat i on forpar ol e, and Thom as once a gai n s oughtr el i ef i n t he fe der al court s . T he D i s tr i ctC our tdeni ed habe as but , on appea l , w e gr ant ed Thom as ’ m ot i on foruncondi t i onal habea s corpus r el i ef a nd or der ed th e S u p e rin ten d e n t o f

th e P e n n sy lv a n ia S tate C o rre c tio n a l In stitu te a t G ra ter f o rd to r el eas e Thom as on par ol e. M i ckens - T hom as I I , 355 F. 3d at310. W e found thatthe B oard ha d sho w n “w i l l ful non com pli ance” w i th o ur previ ou s orderi n M i cken s- T ho m as I and had a ct ed i n “bad f ai th” and i n a manners uffi ci entt o s uppor tan “i nfer ence of4

r et al i at i on orvi ndi ct i venes s on the partof the B oar d” t ow ar ds T hom as . M i ckens - T hom as I I , 355 F. 3d at310. A s a r es ul tof ouror deri n M i ckens - T hom as I I , T hom as w as r el eas ed fr om pr i s on i n J anuary2004. A ft erT hom as w as r el eas ed on par ol e, he s ubm i t t ed t o the B oar d a “home pl an” thats etfor th hi s pr opos ed l i vi ng arr angement s . I n thi s pl an, T hom as pr opos ed t o l i ve w i th hi s nephew , C al vi n M i ckens , hi s nephew ’ s w i fe, C ather i ne M i ckens , and the M i ckens ’ adul ts on i n t hei rhom e i n Pocono C ountryPl ace , a s o- cal l ed “ga t edcomm uni ty ” l ocat ed i n M onr oe C ounty , Penns y l vani a. M i chae l B aker , a par ol e age ntw i th the B oar d’ s Scr ant on offi ce, vi s i t ed Pocono C ountryPl ace and metw i th t he M i ckens es . H e furthers poke w i th l ocal l aw enfor cement offi ci al s i n M onr oe C ounty . A ft erconduct i ng thi s i nves t i gat i on, B akerr ecomm ended r ej ect i on of Thom as ’ pr offe r ed home pl an. A p p e lle e D is tr ic t D ir e c to r S m ith c o n c u rr e d in B a k e r’ s re c o m m e n d a tio n . A ccor di ng t o Sm i th, he obj ect ed t o T hom as ’ hom e pl an bec aus e of the l ar ge numberof chi l dr en w ho l i ve i n Pocono C ount ryPl ace , as w el l as the fa ctthatT hom as w oul d be l eft uns upervi s ed i n t he hous e dur i ng the w or k w eek. A l though both C al vi n and C ather i ne M i ckens have c ar eer s i n t he ment al heal th fi el d, thei rj obs r equi r e them t o be aw ayfr om hom e fr om appr oxi m at el y1: 00 p. m . t o 2: 00 a. m . everydaythattheyw or k. U l t i m at el y , by w ayof a lett er dat ed A ug ust13 , 20 04 , the B oard affirm ed the den i al of T ho m as’ pr opos ed home pl an.A s f o u n d b yth e D istric t C o u rt: “ [ T h o m a s’] p a ro le 1 s upervi s i on [i n A l l en tow n] cons i s t s of vi s i t s byhi s par ol e off i cer th re e o r f o u r tim e s a m o n th . O th e r th a n th a t, no o n e su p e rv ise s h im i n anys ens e of the w or d. ” A pp. at8. T h e D i s tr i ctC our tfur ther found that T h om as ’ A l l ent ow n apart m enti s l ocat ed nea rs ever al schoo l s and d ay care cent ers . 5 M eanw hil e, T ho m as had b een p rovi ded w i th a li stof B oard-approve d ap artm ents , al l of w hi ch w er e l ocat ed i n A l l ent ow n, Penns y l vani a. T hom as chos e t o l i ve i n an apart m enton H ami l t on St r eeti n A l l ent ow n w her e he s t i l l r es i des pendi ng the out come of thi s l i t i gat i on. W e not e thatA l l ent ow n i s appr oxi m at el yfi ftym i l es fr om M onr oe 1 C ounty , butT hom as m us thave pe r m i s s i on fr om hi s par ol e s upervi s ort o l eave A l l ent ow n. O n A pr i l 4, 2004, T hom as fi l ed a Com pl ai nti n the D i s tr i ctC our tal l egi ng that , by re f u sin g to a llo w h im to liv e w ith h is f a m ily , the d e f

e n d a n ts w e re v io latin g h is cons t i tut i onal r i ght s . T hom as al s o fi l ed on thatdat e a M ot i on forPr el i m i naryI nj unct i on in w h ich h e m o v e d th e D istric t C o u rt to iss u e a n o rd e r re q u irin g th e B o a rd to a llo w h im to liv e w ith h is n e p h e w in M o n ro e C o u n ty w h ile th e litig a tio n w a s p e n d in g . T he D i s tr i ctC our thel d hear i ngs on the i nj unct i on m ot i on on A pr i l 19 and J ul y29, 2004. O n A ugus t27, 2004, the D i s tr i ctC our tent er ed a M emora ndum and O r derdeny i ng T h o m a s’ M o tio n f

o r P re lim in a ryIn

ju n c tio n . O n S e p tem b e r 2 7 , 2 0 0 4 , T h o m a s lo d g e d th is tim e lya p p e a l. II. I n r evi ew i ng the di s pos i t i on of a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on m ot i on, w e r evi ew “the6

D istri ct C o u rt ’s co n clus ion s o f law in a p lena ryfa sh ion , it s fin d ing s o f f ac t un d er a cl ear l yerr oneous s t andar d, and i t s deci s i on t o gr antordenyan i nj unct i on forabus e of di s cr et i on. ” W arner - L amber tC o. v. B r eathas ur e, I nc. , 204 F. 3d 87, 89 n. 1 ( 3d C i r . 2000) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i ons om i t t ed) ; s ee a l s o M cK ees por tH os p. v. A ccr edi t at i on C ounci l forG r aduat e M ed. E duc. , 24 F. 3d 519, 523 ( 3d C i r . 1994) . Fourfac t or s govern a di s tr i ctcourt ’ s deci s i on w hethert o i s s ue a pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on: ( 1) w hetherthe m ovanthas s how n a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tyof s ucce s s on the mer i t s ; ( 2) w hetherthe m ovantw i l l be i r r epar abl yi nj ur ed bydeni al of the r el i ef; ( 3) w hethergr ant i ng pr el i m i naryr el i ef w i l l r es ul ti n even gr eat erharm t o the nonmovi ng party ; and ( 4) w hethergr ant i ng the pr el i m i naryr el i ef w i l l be i n the publ i c i nt er es t . A m . C i vi l L i ber t i es U n ion o f N . J. v . B lack H o rse P ike R eg ’l B d . o f E d u c., 8 4 F . 3 d 1 4 7 1 , 1 4 7 7 n . 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 9 6 ) (e n b a n c ). F u rth e rm o re , w e h a v e n o ted th a t “w h e n th e p re lim in a ryin ju n c tio n is di r ect ed notm er el yatpr es ervi ng the s t atus quo but , as i n thi s cas e, atpr ovi di ng m andat oryr el i ef, the bur den on the movi ng partyi s part i cul ar l yheavy . ” Punnettv. C arter, 6 2 1 F . 2 d 5 7 8 , 5 8 2 (3d C ir . 1 9 8 0 ). I n cons i der i ng the pr obabi l i tyof the movant ’ s s ucce s s on the mer i t s , w e not e that sev era l of

T h o m as’ c lai m s are n o v el. F o r ex am p le, T h o m as a sserts th at th e B o ard ’s r efus al t o al l ow hi m t o l i ve w i th hi s nephew vi ol at es hi s cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o fr ee asso ciati o n an d h is sub stan ti v e d u e p roc ess righ t t o li v e w ith h is fam il y . H o w ev er, neither the U nit ed S t at es Su prem e C ou rtno r this cou rthav e ever held that a parol ee has a7

cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o l i ve w i th fami l ym ember s oras s oci at e w i th w hom everhe ors he p lease s. Ind ee d , the S u p rem e C o u rth as n o ted w ith ap p rov al th e f ac t th at “p aro lees a re [typi cal l y ] forbi dden . . . t o have a s s oci at i ons orcorr es pondence w i th cert ai n cat egor i es of u n d e sira b le p e rso n s . . . [ a n d ] [ t]yp ica lly . . . m u st s e e k p e rm iss io n f ro m th e ir p a ro le offi cer s befor e enga gi ng i n s peci fi ed ac t i vi t i es , s uch as changi ng . . . l i vi ng quart er s . . . . ” M orr i s s eyv. B r ew er , 408 U . S. 471, 478 ( 1972) . W e do nots ugges tthatthe M i ckens es fal l w i thi n t he ca t egoryof “unde s i r abl e per s ons ” r efe rr ed t o i n M orr i s s ey , butm er el yt hat the B oar d has w i de contr ol overa par ol ee’ s as s oci at i ons . T he D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed the pauci tyof l egal s uppor tforT hom as ’ s ubs t ant i ve due pr oces s and as s oci at i onal - r i ght cl ai m s , and r eas onabl yconcl uded thatthos e cl ai m s do nothave a r eas onabl e l i kel i hood of success on the m eri t s. In p u rs u in g h is re q u e s t f o r a n in ju n c tio n w ith re s p e c t to h is liv in g a rr a n g e m e n ts , T hom as al s o ar gues thatthe B oar d vi ol at ed hi s ex pos tfac t o r i ght s beca us e i tfocus ed s ol el yon s afe tyw i thoutcons i der at i on of r ehabi l i t at i on, one of the gui di ng purpos es of the pr e- 1996 s t atut orys cheme. T he Penns y l vani a Supr eme C our thas r ece nt l yhel d that“the 1 9 9 6 [ p a ro le] a m e n d m e n t m a yb e sh o w n to v io late th e e x p o st f a c to c lau se if

a n in m a te is able t o d em on strat e t hat the 1 99 6 am end m ent, as appli ed to hi m , creat es a si gn i fi cant r i sk of pr ol ongi ng hi s i ncar cer at i on. ” C i m as zew s ki v. Pa. B d. of Pr ob. & Par ol e, 868 A . 2d 4 1 6 , 4 2 7 (P a . 2 0 0 5 ). H ow ever, T ho m as ci t es no p recedent t o sup po rthis po si t i on that the B oard’s8

d e ter m in a tio n w ith re sp e c t to h is liv in g a rra n g e m e n t p re se n ts a p o ten tial E x P o st F a c to C lau se v io latio n . In d e e d , the d e c isio n a l law in d ica tes th a t g e n e ra lly , in o rd e r to v io late the Ex P os tFact o C l aus e, a l aw m us ti ncr eas e puni s hm ent . C al . D ep’ tof C orr . v. M o ra le s , 5 1 4 U .S . 4 9 9 , 5 0 8 -0 9 (1 9 9 5 ); C o llin s v . Y o u n g b lo o d , 4 9 7 U .S . 3 7 , 4 2 (1 9 9 0 ). T hus , w i th r es pectt o par ol e, the U ni t ed St at es Supr eme C our thas emphasi zed thatnot ev eryretroac ti v elyap p li ca b le st atuto rych an g e c rea ti n g a risk o f a ff ec ti n g a p aro lee’s t erm s orcondi t i ons i s pr ohi bi t ed. M or al es , 514 U . S. at508- 09. I ns t ead, the contr ol l i ng i nqui ryi n par ol e ca s es i s w hetherthe r etr oact i ve appl i cat i on of a l at er - i ns t i tut ed l aw or p o licyw o u ld c re a te “ a su f f icie n t risk o f

in c re a sin g th e m e a su re o f p u n ish m e n t atta c h e d to th e c o v e re d c ri m e s .” Id . a t 5 0 9 ; s e e a ls o G a rn e r v . J o n e s , 5 2 9 U .S . 2 4 4 , 2 5 0 (2 0 0 0 ). St at ed otherw i s e, i n or dert o vi ol at e the Ex P os tFact o C l aus e, a s t atut oryorpol i cychange gener al l ym us t“al t er [] the def i ni t i on of cr i m i nal conductori ncr eas e[] the pena l tyby w hi ch a c r i m e i s puni s habl e; ” the fa ctthata l aw s i m pl yoper at es t o the gene r al “di s advant age” of a pa r ol ee ( orpar ol e s eeke r ) i s i ns uffi ci ent . M or al es , 514 U . S. at506 n. 3. T he di s s entagr ees w i th t he l egal pr i nci pl e, butnonethel es s per s i s t s i n i t s ar gum ent thatthe Ex P os tFact o C l aus e appl i es t o the B oar d’ s di s cr et i onarydeci s i on as t o the r es i dence of the par ol ee. N one of the ca s es ci t ed bythe di s s entforthei rgener al l anguage s o h o l d s , o re v e n s u g g e s t s , th a tth e d i s s e n t ’ s v i e w r e p r e s e n t s th e a p p l i c a b l e l a w. W e nee d notdeci de atthe pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on s t age the ext entt o w hi ch the9

B o a r d ’ s r e

j e c t i o n o f

a p a r o l e e ’ s h o m e p l a n i m p l i c a t e s th e E x P o s tF a c t o C l a u s e . We m e re lyn o te th a t itc a n b e a rg u e d th a t su c h a d e ter m in a tio n d o e s n o t re late to “puni s hm ent . ” I ti s s uffi ci entt o not e thatthe above - ci t ed ca s es s ugges tthatT hom as does n o t enjo ya re aso n ab le l ikeliho o d o f su cc ess o n the m erit s o f h is cl aim that the B o ard ’s act i on s w i th respectt o h i s l i ving arr ang em ent vi olat ed h i s ex po stfact o ri gh t s. O n t he otherhand, one of Thom as ’ ar gum ent s s t ands on a more s ecur e l egal foot i ng. I ti s w el l - es t abl i s hed thatvi ndi ct i ve orr et al i at orygovernm ent al conductvi ol at es due pr oces s . See N or th C ar ol i na v. Pear ce, 395 U . S. 711, 725 ( 1969) ; M ar s hal l v. La n s i n g , 8 3 9 F . 2 d 9 3 3 , 9 4 7 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 8 ) . Th o ma s a l l e g e s th a ti n d e n y i n g h i s h o me pl an, the B oar d act ed vi ndi ct i vel y . I ndeed, the D i s tr i ctC our tnot ed thatan “i nfer ence of re talia tio n o r v in d ictiv e n e ss c o u ld a rise f ro m w h a t ap p e a rs to b e a d istin c tio n w ith o u t a s ubs t ant i al di ffe r ence i n t he home pl an the B oar d r ej ect ed and the one i tw oul d appr ove. ” A p p . at 9 . T h e D istric t C o u rt’s s u sp icio n th a t T h o m a s’ p ro p o se d h o m e p lan v is-a -v is h is curr entl i vi ng s i tuat i on i n A l l ent ow n cons t i tut ed “a di s t i nct i on w i thouta s ubs t ant i al di ffe r ence ” i s notcompl et el yunw arr ant ed. B oth l i vi ng quart er s ar e nea rs chool s and day car es , both ar e i n r i s i ng- cr i m e ar eas , and both l eave T hom as uns upervi s ed forthe gr eatm aj or i tyof hi s t i m e. T h e D istric t C o u rt, h o w e v e r, u lti m a telyf o u n d th a t T h o m a s’ p ro f f e re d e v id e n c e d id nots uppor ta fi ndi ng of r et al i at i on orvi ndi ct i venes s on the partof the B oar d i n r ej ect i ng th e h o m e p lan . O n th e c u rre n t sta te o f th e re c o rd , this f

a c tu a l f in d in g w a s n o t cle a rlyO f cour s e, our conce rn for defe r ence and comi tyw oul d be 2 negat ed on a f

i ndi ng thatthe B oard act ed i n a vi ndi ct i ve or o therw ise u n co n sti tuti o n al m an n er. A s d iscu ssed ab o v e, ho w ev er, th e D istric t C o u rt re a so n a b lyc o n c lu d e d th a t th e re c o rd a s c u rre n tly composed doe s nots uppor ts uch a f i ndi ng. 10 err on eou s; thu s, the D i stri ctC ou rt ’s res ult ant conclusi on regar ding T ho m as’ ul t i m at e l i kel i hood of s ucce s s on the mer i t s of hi s due pr oces s /r et al i at i on cl ai m w as not unr eas onabl e. N ordo w e have a bas i s on t hi s r ecor d t o r ej ectthe D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s hol di ng that gr ant i ng T hom as ’ m ot i on fora pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on w oul d l i kel ycaus e harm t o the nonm ovi ng partyand w oul d notbe i n the publ i c’ s i nt er es t . B l ack H or s e Pi ke R eg’ l B d. of Educ. , 84 F. 3d at1477 n. 2. T he B oar d has det erm i ned thatal l ow i ng T hom as t o l i ve at Pocono C ountr yPl ace r atherthan i n A l l ent ow n w oul d i ncr eas e the r i s k t o the publ i c. T he B oar d, a s t at e- l evel and exe cut i ve- br anch e nt i ty , has an obvi ous i nt er es ti n notbei ng m i cr om anage d bythe fe der al court s ; l i kew i s e, the publ i c i nt er es ti s fur ther ed byal l ow i ng th e e x p e rie n c e d p e n a l o f f ice rs a t th e B o a rd – ra th e r th a n th is c o u rt – to m a k e p a ro le decis i on s. 2 F i nall y , the D i stri ctC ou rtfou nd that deni al of T ho m as’ m oti on w ou l d n ot cause hi m i rr epar abl e i nj ury . D ur i ng the J ul y29, 2004 hear i ng, Par ol e O ffi cerA nthony M o n d e llo , w h o su p e rv ise s T h o m a s, te stif ied re g a rd in g a c o n v e rsa tio n h e h a d w ith T ho m as: I as k [Thom as ] bas i cal l yhow he’ s doi ng everyt i m e I go ther e [the11

a p a rt m e n t in A lle n to w n ], o f c o u rs e , a n d h e e x p re s s e s to m e th a t h e lik e s it. T he l as tt i m e I s poke w i th hi m he s ai d he w as cons i der i ng noteven movi ng beca us e he l i ked i ts o m uch. A p p . at 1 1 3 . R e f

e re n c in g th is te stim o n y , the D istric t C o u rt f o u n d th a t T h o m a s “ h im se lf is cl ear l yambi val entaboutw hathe r eal l yw ant s . ” A pp. at12. C ons i der i ng thatthe D i s tr i ct C our tfound Thom as t o be “a m bi val ent ” abouthi s hous i ng s i tuat i on ( a fi ndi ng thati s not cl ear l yerr oneous ) , i tcan ha r dl ybe s ai d thatm ai nt ai ni ng the s t atus quo and l eavi ng T h o m a s to liv e in A llen to w n d u rin g th e p e n d e n c yo f th e D istric t C o u rt lit ig a tio n w o u ld w o r k a n i rr e p a r a b l e i n

j u r y. W e are not i nsensi t i ve to the m anyargum ents vigorousl ysetforth o n T ho m as’ b eh alf b yh is ap p ell ate c o u n sel, p arti cu larl ythe a rgu m en t th at i t i s co n side rab lym o re c o stlyf o r T h o m a s to liv e in a re n ted a p a rtm e n t in A llen to w n ra th e r th a n re n t f re e w ith h is n ep h ew . H o w ev er, w e d o n o t r ev iew stat e p aro le de cisi o n s d e n o v o . O u rs i s a v ery l i m i t ed s cope of

r evi ew , and w e musttr ead l i ght l y . I ti s pos s i bl e thatw i th the pas s age of a y earthe part i es m ayhave c hanged thei rpos i t i ons . T hom as m ayhave f ound thatbei ng i n a ci tys uch as A l l ent ow n offe r s hi m m or e opt i ons fordi ver s i on than the more rur al ar ea w here hi s neph ew i s si tuated. O n the ot her han d, the B oard m aydecide that Th om as’ m ove t o M onr oe C ountyi s no l ongeradver s e t o the publ i c i nt er es t . C f. 37 Pa. C ode § 65. 4 ( r equi r i ng par ol ee t o “[o] bt ai n the w r i t t en perm i s s i on of the par ol e s upervi s i on s t aff befor e cha ngi ng hi s r es i dence ”) . T hos e ar e cons i der at i ons w e l eave t o the B oar d and the D i s tr i ctC our ti n t he fi r s ti ns t ance .C i t i ng D auber tv. M err el l D ow Phar m s . , 509 U . S. 579 3 ( 1993) , and Fed. R . E vi d. 702, T hom as ar gues that the D is tr i ct C o u rtab u sed it s d iscreti o n in ad m itti n g the e x p ert t esti m o n yo f D r. V eroni que V al l i er e dur i ng the J ul y29, 2004 hear i ng. H ow ever , e v e n a ss u m in g a r g u e n d o th a t th e D istric t C o u rt a b u se d its di s cr et i on i n admi t t i ng D r . V al l i er e’ s t es t i m ony , anys uch err orw as harm l es s beca us e the D i s tr i ct C o u r tbar el ym ent i oned, l etal one re lie d o n , th e c h a lle n g e d te s tim o n yin re a c h in g its d e c is io n . 12 I n s um , and cons i der i ng thatT hom as ’ “pr el i m i naryi nj unct i on [w as ] di r ect ed not m er el yatpr es ervi ng the s t atus quo but. . . atpr ovi di ng m andat oryr el i ef, ” C art er , 621 F. 2d at582, w e hol d t hatthe D i s tr i ctC our tdi d notabus e i t s di s cr et i on i n deny i ng the M ot i on forPr el i m i naryI nj unct i on. 3 III . F o r th e a b o v e sta ted re a so n s, w e w ill a f f irm th e o rd e r o f

th e D istric t C o u rt.R O SE N N , C i r cui tJ udge, di s s ent i ng.

B eca us e I bel i eve the di s tr i ctcourtover l ooked i m por t antas pect s of the r ecor d t hat d e mon s tr a t e th a tth e a p p e l l e e s c o n t i n u e t o i g n o r e M i c k e n s - Th o ma s ’ s r i g h t s u n d e rth e Ex P o s t F a c to C la u s e o f

th e U n ite d S ta te s C o n s titu tio n , I r e s p e c tf u lly d is s e n t. A lth o u g h th is is a n a p p e a l f ro m a n o rd e r d e n y in g a p re lim in a ryin ju n c tio n , it c a n n o t b e d iv o rc e d f

ro m th e e x ten siv e h a b e a s c o rp u s p ro c e e d in g s th a t h a v e p re c e d e d th is l at es tchapt eri n M i ckens - T hom as ’ s par ol es . A s the maj or i tynot es , w e found “ thatthe B oard ha d sho w n ‘w i l ful non -com pli ance’ w i th o ur previ ou s orderi n M i cken s- T ho m as I and had a ct ed i n ‘ bad fa i th’ and i n a manners uffi ci entt o s uppor t‘ an i nfer ence of re talia tio n o r v in d ictiv e n e ss o n th e p a rt o f th e B o a rd ’ to w a rd s M ick e n s-T h o m a s.” A n te at3- 4 ( quot i ng M i ckens - T hom as v. V aughn, 355 F. 3d 294, 310 ( 3d C i r . 2004) (“M icke n s-T h o m as II”)). T h is co n text m u st fram e o u r i n terpretati o n o f th e B o ard ’s deci s i on t o denyM i ckens - T hom as ’ s pr opos ed r es i dence . O f cour s e, I agr ee w i th the maj or i tythatthe B oar d has an obvi ous i nt er es ti n not b e in g m icr o m a n a g e d b yth e f e d e ra l co u rt. T h is c o u rt like w ise h a s n o in ter e st in m i cr om anagi ng ort i m e t o m i cr om anage B oar d deci s i ons r egar di ng the moni t or i ng of par ol ees . O n t he otherhand, w e do have an obl i gat i on t o r evi ew the moni t or i ng act i vi t i es of the B oar d t hatvi ol at e fe der al cons t i tut i onal pr ohi bi t i ons . I n ourl at es topi ni on i n the habea s corpus pr ocee di ngs , w e not ed thatM i ckens - T hom as ’ s r ehabi l i t at i on act i vi t i es w h ile in p riso n h a d e a rn e d th e u n a n im o u s s u p p o rt o f th e p riso n c o rre c tio n o f f ice rs a n d a llvot i ng m ember s of the D epart m entof C orr ect i ons I ns t i tut i onal St aff . M i ckens - T hom as I I , 355 F. 3d at297- 98. I n addi t i on, M i ckens - T hom as cons i s t ent l ym ai nt ai ned a r ecor d of good behavi or , part i ci pat ed i n s ex ther apyand al cohol abus e pr event i on pr ogr ams, and c o m p lied w ith a ll o f

th e B o a rd ’s r e q u ire m e n ts. Id . at 2 9 8 . T h e re f o re , in o u r m a n d a te to the B oar d t o r ect i fyi t s ex pos tfac t o vi ol at i ons , w e expl i ci t l ys t at ed: T he pr e- 1996 pol i ci es pl ace s i gni fi cantw ei ghton fac t or s r el at i ng t o an i nm at e’ s pot ent i al t o adaptt o l i fe on the out s i de, and on the recom m end at i on s of t he inst i tuti on al st aff. T he p re- 19 96 po l i ci es sugge st thatno s i ngl e fa ct ors houl d be contr ol l i ng i n a dec i s i on t o denypar ol e t o an appl i cant . M or eover , the pr e- 1996 D eci s i on M aki ng G ui del i nes w er e gi ven s i gni fi cant , al though notdi s pos i t i ve w ei ght . A departur e fr om the G ui del i nes r equi r ed a r eci t at i on of uni que fa ct or s , outw ei ghi ng thos e i n the G u id e lin e s a n a ly sis . T h e B o a rd D e c isio n s o n e a c h o f T h o m a s’s p a ro le hear i ngs r el yheavi l yon ‘ hi gh as s aul t i ve beha vi orpot ent i al , ’ w hi ch r el at es pr i m ar i l yt o t he natur e of the or i gi nal offe ns e, des pi t e manyother s i gni fi cantfac t or s favor i ng par ol e. M i ckens - T hom as I I , 355 F. 3d at302- 03 ( quot i ng M i ckens - T hom as v. V aughn, 321 F. 3d 3 7 4 , 3 8 8 (3 d C ir . 2 0 0 3 )) (e m p h a s is in o ri g in a l) . D es pi t e thi s m andat e, the r ecor d i n thi s i nj unct i ve s egmentof the M i ckens - T hom as sag a re v ea ls th at th e B o ard co n ti n u es to fo cu s o n the p u b li c sa fe tyri sk s in total disreg ard o f a lm o st f o rtyy e a rs o f

p riso n re h a b ili tatio n a n d a n e x c e llen t re c o rd o f c o m p lian c e w ith all p rog ram s p resc ri b ed b ythe D ep artm en t of C o rrecti o n s. T h ese w ere im p o rt an t fac tors w h ich, prior to 1 9 9 6 an d the c h an g es in the B o ard ’s G u idelines an d p aro le po li cies, w ere ent i t l ed t o w ei ghti n bal anci ng the pr i s oner ’ s r ehabi l i t at i on and l i bertyi nt er es tw i th the i nt er es tof publ i c s afe ty . See 61 P. S. § 331. 1 ( 1941) ( amended 1996) . I ns t ead, the B oar d, i n r evi ew i ng the par ol e per i od, cont i nues t o emphasi ze a n overr i di ng cons i der at i on ofp u b lic s a f e tya n d a to tal d isre g a rd o f th e p ro g ra m s it re q u ire d o f M ick e n s-T h o m a s in h is r ehabi l i t at i on. I n r ej ect i ng M i ckens - T hom as ’ s pl an t o l i ve w i th hi s nephew and ni ece i n a gat ed comm uni tyi n t he Poconos of Penns y l vani a, par ol e age ntB aker ’ s overr i di ng conce rn w as th e risk to th e c o m m u n ityp o se d b yM ick e n s-T h o m a s’s p re se n c e , ev e n th o u g h h is d e sig n a ted re sid e n c e in A llen to w n is a lso n e a r h o m e s o f c h ild re n a n d c lo se r to p u b lic s chool s . T he nephe w w i th w hom M i ckens - T hom as pl anned t o l i ve i s a s afe tyand s ecur i tyoffi ceratthe K i rbyFor ens i c Ps y chi atr i c C ent erof N ew Y or k C i ty , w her e he s upervi s es el even of

fi cer s . ( A R 37) H i s w i fe i s al s o empl oy ed as a s upervi s orw or ki ng w i th the ment al l yhandi cappe d. T heyboth l eave forw or k fi ve day s a w eek a t1 p. m . and re tu rn h o m e a f

ter m id n ig h t. A c c o rd in g to p a ro le a g e n t B a k e r, w h o w a s v e ryf a m ili a r w ith the Pocono ar ea, the nea r es ts chool w as “pr obabl yabouts i x m i l es aw ay , ” ( A R 61) a lth o u g h a n u m b e r o f

c h ild re n liv e in th e c o m m u n ity . B a k e r a lso c o n sid e re d th e a re a to b e a ff li cted w ith a risi n g crim e ra te. (A R 6 9 ) B aker fou nd no thing un accep t able abou tthe M i cken s fam i l yw i th w ho m M i cken sT hom as pr opos ed t o l i ve, ori n t he condi t i on of thei rhom e. N orhad B akeri nt ervi ew ed M ic k e n s -T h o m a s b e f

o re re c o m m e n d in g a re

je c tio n o f

th e P o c o n o h o m e p ro p o s a l. (A R 75 ) B aker’ s apprehen si on w as predi cat ed, i n p art , on his con cern that the M i cken s’ w ork sched ule pr ov i ded them l i t t l e, i f any , op po rtun i tyt o sup ervi se and m on i t or M i cken sT ho m as. H ow ever, the A l l entow n resi den ce w hich the B oard recom m end ed fo r M i cken s-T hom as has even l es s s upervi s i on and moni t or i ng beca us e M i ckens - T hom as l i ves al one

in a n a p a rtm e n t w ith o u t an y o n e to su p e rv ise o r m o n ito r h im e x c e p t h is p a ro le a g e n t, A nthonyM ondel l o, w ho s ees hi m butthr ee orfourt i m es a mont h. Fur therm or e, the B oar d i gnor ed the eve n gr eat err i s k pos ed t o chi l dr en i n A l l ent ow n w her e s chool s and chi l dr en ar e nea rM i ckens - T hom as ’ s r es i dence and w her e he l acks the s upervi s i ng p re s e n c e o f

a n yf a m ily o n w e e k e n d s o r a f te r t h e yre tu rn f

ro m w o rk . T o bol s t eri t s deci s i on, the B oar d r el i es on the t es t i m onyof D r . V er oni que V all iarc, a p sy ch o log istli ce n sed in P en n sy lvan ia si n ce 1 9 9 5 . T h e B o ard arg u es th at D r. V all iarc’s o b serv ati o n s p ara ll el th o se o f p aro le ag en ts B ak er a n d M o n d ell o . H o w ev er, nei therthe age nt s norD r . V al l i ar c gave anycons i der at i on t o the numer ous r ehabi l i t at i on p ro g ra m s s tru c tu re d b yth e S tate in w h ich M ick e n s-T h o m a s p a rticip a ted a n d sa tisf a c to rily co m p let ed d u ri n g h is al m o st fo rtyy ea rs of inca rce rati o n . T h e a g en ts an d D r. V il li arc m ade thei rr ecomm endat i ons and the B oar d appr oved them on t he s uppos i t i on that M i ckens - T hom as l i ved i n a vac uum forthe pas tfor tyy ear s and r ece i ved no bene fi tfr om the n um erous r ehab i l i t at i on program s adm i nis t ered t o h i m bythe S t at e. T heyal so ig n o re d th a t M ic k e n s -T h o m a s w a s n o w n e a rl ye ig h ty y e a rs o f a g e a n d in p o o r h e a lth . D r . V i l l i ar c’ s t es t i m ony , l i ke the B oar d’ s appr ehens i ons , focus ed narr ow l yon the ri sk of reci divi sm , even tho ug h o ur m and at e on M i cken s- T ho m as’ s parol e rel ease di r ect ed the B oar d t o bal ance hi s r ehabi l i t at i on and l i bertyi nt er es tw i th the i nt er es tof p u b lic s a f

e ty. D r. V illia rc e m p h a s iz e d th e w o rd “ ri s k ” f re q u e n tly in h e r t e s tim o n y . ( A 160) T he di s tr i ctcourteven not ed herus e of the t erm “a l ot . ” ( A 162) H ow ever , s henevercons i der ed the gr eat err i s k of M i ckens - T hom as l i vi ng al one, dayaft erday , s even

d ay s a w ee k , w ith o u t anyfa m il yin sigh t fo r ev en p art of the d ay . D r. V il li arc a c k n o w led g e d h e r te stim o n yd id n o t f o c u s s p e c if

ica llyo n M ick e n s-T h o m a s a n d h is fami l ybutr atherw as a s t at ementof “ge ner al pr i nci pl es . ” She neve ri nves t i gat ed the hom e of Cal vi n M i ckens and hi s fami l yw her e M i ckens - T hom as pl anned t o l i ve and n ev er e v en v isi ted th e c o m m u n ity . (A 1 6 5 ) D r . V i l l i ar c conc eded thathert es t i m onyneveraddr es s ed thi s s peci fi c ca s e ort he Pocono comm uni ty . She admi t t ed thata “s i gni fi cantper i od of tr eatm ent ” coul d aff ecther as s es s m entof the off

ender ’ s r i s k. ( A 165) She acknow l edged that“I do notknow an ything ab o u t th is pa rt icular c ase at all , w h at pa role h as d o n e o r no t do n e.” (A 1 6 7 ) D r. V i l l i ar c gave an uns uppor t ed opi ni on pr edi cat ed i n l ar ge parton an unr eas oned dec i s i on o f p a ro le a g e n t B a k e r. T h e trial c o u rt a p tlysu m m a riz e d h e r te stim o n yw ith th e sta tem e n t, “She does n’ tknow anythi ng aboutthe fa m i l yoranythi ng. ” ( A 167- 68) T h e B o a r d ’ s d e c i s i o n t o r e j e c tM i c k e n s - T h o m a s ’ s p l a n t o l i v e w i th f a m i l y, compel l i ng hi m t o l i ve al one i n an apa r t m enti n A l l ent ow n, amount s t o nothi ng m or e than an ext ens i on of the B oar d’ s pos t - 1996 pol i cyof el evat i ng conce rn forpubl i c s afe tyover th e p a ro lee ’s r e h a b ili tatio n a n d lib e rtyin ter e st. T h e re is n o e v id e n c e th a t th e p a ro le agen t s, the B oard, or D r. V i l l i arc ever r eview ed the r ehab i l i t at i on recor d o f M i cken sT h o m a s in a rr iv in g a t th e d e c is io n to re je c t h is p la n to liv e w ith h is n e p h e w a n d n ie c e . T her e i s no evi dence thattheyeverw ei ghed M i ckens - T hom as ’ s r ecor d of r ehabi l i t at i on, his excell ent com pli ance w i th the st at e rehabil i t at i on program s, and his l i bertyi nter estw i th the B oar d’ s conce r n forpubl i c s afe ty . T he B oar d s um m ar i l ydi s car ded the r es ul t s of

i t s ext ens i ve r ehabi l i t at i on pr ogr ams forB aker ’ s s pecul at i ve, s hal l ow , and s uper fi ci al re c o m m e n d a tio n . T h is c o m p lete d isre g a rd o f th e B o a rd ’s o w n p ro g ra m s d e sig n e d to prepare a pri soner for l i fe afterpri son co nst i tutes a con st i tuti on al den i al of d ue p rocess . T h e d ec isi o n o f th e d istri ct co u rtalso m ak es n o ref ere n ce to M icke n s-T h o m as’s pr i s on r ehabi l i t at i on orthe bene fi t s that , no doubt , i nher e fr om l i vi ng w i th fami l y . A s t he Supr eme C our thas acknow l edged, the s anct i tyof the fa m i l ys houl d be pr ot ect ed bec aus e i ti s throug h the fam i l ythat w e i ncu l cat e and pass dow n m anyof o ur m ost cheri shed v al ues, m oral and cultural . . . . T he tr adit i on of u ncles , aun t s, c o u sin s, a n d e sp e c iallyg ra n d p a re n ts s h a rin g a h o u se h o ld a lo n g w ith p a re n ts and chi l dr en has r oot s equal l yvener abl e and e qual l ydes ervi ng of cons t i tut i onal r ecogni t i on. O verthe y ear s , m i l l i ons of ourci t i zens have gr ow n up i n j us ts uch an e nvi r onm ent , and most , s ur el y , have pr ofi t ed fr om i t . . . . E s peci al l yi n t i m es of adve r s i tys uch as the dea th of a s pous e or economi c nee d, the br oaderfami l yhas t ended t o come t ogetherform utual s u s te n a n c e a n d to m a in ta in o r r e b u ild a s e c u re h o m e lif e . M o o re v . C ityo f E ast C leve land , 4 3 1 U . S . 4 9 4 , 5 0 3 -50 5 (19 9 7 ) (cit ati o n s o m itted). I n D r ol l i ngerv. M i l l i gan, 552 F. 2d 1220 ( 7th C i r . 1977) , a s t at e pr obat i oner chal l enged a s uncons t i tut i onal cert ai n condi t i ons of herpr obat i on. O n appea l t o the S ev en th C ir cu it , that co u rt , also in a h ab ea s co rpu s p roc ee d ing , rev erse d the d istri ct co u rt and gr ant ed an i nj unct i on enj oi ni ng the enf or cementof t erm s and condi t i ons of pr obat i on w hich affected the ri gh tof the grandf at her t o care for hi s parol ed g randda ug hter . In so doi ng, the courtnot ed the i m por t ance of the fa m i l yuni tand ac know l edged that“the i nt egr i tyof the fa m i l yuni thas been a ffor ded the pr ot ect i on of due pr oces s of l aw . ” I d. at 1227. T he courtw enton t o not e that“the s t at e ca n r es tr i ctthe exe r ci s e of thi s r i ghtbyfami l ym ember s onl yi f i tcan de m ons tr at e” a n i nt er es tof “ove rr i di ng s i gni fi canc e. ” I d.

T hi s deci s i on s how s thatM i ckens - T hom as has a r eas onabl e pr obabi l i tyof s ucce s s on the m e rits a n d th a t h e w ill b e irre p a ra b lyin ju re d b yth e d e n ial o f

re lief. F u rth e rm o re , it dem on strat es that gr anti ng the rel i ef M i cken s- T ho m as seeks w i l l be in the p ub l i c i nter est beca us e i tr ej ect s the deni al of due pr oces s and i m pl ement s the St at e’ s r ehabi l i t at i ve program s. T he maj or i tyci t es C i m as zew s ki v. Pa. B d. O f Pr ob. & Par ol e, 868 A . 2d 416, 427 ( Pa. 2005) forthe pr opos i t i on thatthe Ex P os tFact o C l aus e i s notvi ol at ed unl es s an i nm at e i s abl e t o d em on strat e t hat Penn sy l van i a’s 19 96 parol e am end m ent cr eat es a sign ifi ca n t r isk o f p rolo n g ing h is i n ca rce rati o n . C im asz ew sk i i s ina p p li ca b le, h o w ev er, beca us e i taddr es s ed the s i tuat i on w her e an i ncar cer at ed i nm at e fi l es a w r i tof m andamus t o co m pel the B oard t o g ranthim parol e. T he case d i d n ot deal w i th the i ssue befo re us – th e re tro a c tiv e a p p lica tio n o f th e B o a rd ’s p o st-1 9 9 6 re c id iv ist p o licyto th e p a ro le c o n d itio n s o f

a n in m a te w h o is a lr e a d yre le a s e d . T o b e su re , in o rd e r to v io late e x p o st f a c to , a la w m u st d o m o re th a n sim p ly oper at e t o a pr i s oner ’ s di s advant age. C a. D ept . of C orr . v. M or al es , 514 U . S. 499, 506 n. 3 ( 1995) . A s the maj or i tynot es , the l aw m us tr etr oact i vel yi ncr eas e the puni s hm entof th e p riso n e r. Id . H o w e v e r, th e re tro a c tiv e in c re a se o f p u n ish m e n t is n o t th e o n ly s i tuat i on pr ohi bi t ed bythe Ex P os tFact o C l aus e. I ti ncl udes otherci r cumst ance s , s uch as a l t e r i ng the qu a ntum of e vi de nc e r e qu i r e d t o c on vi c t . St og ne rv. Cal i fo rni a , 53 9 U. S. 607, 615 ( 2003) ( endor s i ng fourcat egor i es of ex pos tfac t o l aw s ) . A nd puni s hm entext ends bey ond i ncar cer at i on t o i ncl ude par ol e and pr obat i on. K or emat s u v. U ni t ed

St at es , 319 U . S. 432, 435 ( 1943) ( “[A ] pr obat i on or deri s an author i zed mode of m i l d and ambul at orypuni s hm ent , the pr obat i on bei ng i nt ended a s a r eform i ng di s ci pl i ne. ”) ( i nt ernal quot at i ons and ci t at i on om i t t ed) . T hus , the Supr eme C our thas not ed thatthe ex pos tfac t o pr ohi bi t i on ext ends t o l aw s w hi ch r etr oact i vel ychange the condi t i ons of a p riso n e r’s p a ro le. G a rn e r v . Jo n e s, 5 2 9 U .S . 2 4 4 , 2 4 9 (2 0 0 0 ) (“ R e tro a c tiv e c h a n g e s in l aw s governi ng par ol e of pr i s oner s , i n s om e i ns t ance s , m aybe vi ol at i ve of thi s pr ece pt [ a g a in s t r e tr o a c tiv e ly in c re a s in g p u n is h m e n t] .” ). Ourp r e v i o u s d e c i s i o n s i n th i s c a s e h a v e e s t a b l i s h e d th a tth e Boa r d v i o l a t e d th e Ex P o st F a c to C lau se b yf

o c u sin g p rim a rilyo n th e re c id iv ist p o licyo f th e 1 9 9 6 p a ro le a m e n d m e n t. T h e re c o rd o n a p p e a l d e m o n stra tes th a t th e B o a rd c o n tin u e s im p ro p e rlyto f o c u s o n th a t p o licyin d e sig n a tin g th a t M ick e n s-T h o m a s s h a ll res id e in a c o m m u n ity w her e, of nec es s i ty , he mustl i ve al one and ba r el ym ake e nds m eet . I n s o doi ng, the B o a rd ’s c o u rse o f

c o n d u c t d e p riv e s M ick e n s-T h o m a s o f th e o p p o rtu n ityto liv e w ith h is fami l yand r ece i ve the i m por t antcar e and s uppor ttheycan pr ovi de. Such an or deri s not tr i vi al orpr ocedur al ori nnocuous , butdi s r egar ds the pr e- 1996 pol i cythatemphasi zes re h a b ilita tio n . T he i nci dent s of di s cr et i on thatthe B oar d pr ovi des “does notdi s pl ace the pr ot ect i ons of the Ex P os tFact o C l aus e . . . . T he dange rthatl egi s l atur es m i ghtdi s favor cert ai n per s ons aft erthe fa cti s pr es enteven i n the par ol e cont ext , and the C our thas s t at ed thatthe Ex P os tFact o C l aus e guar ds agai ns ts uch abus e. ” G arner , 529 U . S. at253( ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . T he cont i nuous r etr oact i ve i m pos i t i on of the B oar d’ s pos t - 1996

r eci di vi s tpol i cyupon M i ckens - T hom as i s m or e puni s hi ng than condi t i ons underthe p r e v i o u s p o l i c y b e c a u s e i td e p r i v e s h i m o f th e s a l u t a ry b e n e f

i t s o f l i v i n g w i th h i s f

a m i l y, re n t f re e , a n d ig n o re s h is re c o rd o f re h a b ilita tio n . A ccor di ngl y , forthe for egoi ng r eas ons , I w oul d r ever s e the or derof the di s tr i ct courtand gr antthe i nj unct i on.