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 8-8-2005 

# W arre n v . U S P arole C omm 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 . 04-4485

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
" W arr e n v . U S P ar o le C omm" (2005). 2005 D e cisio n s . P ape r 723. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2005/723NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N O . 04- 4485

________________ M OR RI S J . WARR E N,

A p p e llan t,
v. UNI T E D S T AT E S P AR OL E CO M M I S S I ON

____________________________________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt Forthe M i ddl e D i s tr i ctof Penns y l vani a ( D . C . C i v. N o. 03- cv- 00624) D istric t Ju d g e : H o n o ra b le E d w in M . K o sik

__________________________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL A R 34. 1( a)

J ul y5, 2005 Bef

or e : RE N D ELL , A M BR O A N D FU EN TES, CI RC U I T J U D G ES

( Fi l ed A ugus t8, 2005)

_________________ OP I NI ON

_________________ P E R C UR I AM A ppel l antM orr i s J . W arr en w as arr es t ed w hi l e on par ol e i n 1973. O n D ece m ber 18, 1973, the Super i orC our tforthe D i s tr i ctof C ol um bi a s ent ence d hi m t o 15 y ear s t o l i fe fors ever al count s of s exual as s aul tw hi l e arm ed, and ki dnappi ng. T he courtor der ed that2

thi s s ent ence run cons ecut i vel yt o anypar ol e vi ol at i on s ent ence . O n J ul y19, 1983, W a rre n w a s re se n ten c e d o n th e se sa m e c h a rg e s to a ter m o f im p riso n m e n t o f

1 0 y e a rs to l i fe, and a c ons ecut i ve t erm of i m pr i s onm entof fi ve t o fi ft een y ear s , for , once a gai n, an aggr egat e t erm of i m pr i s onm entof fi ft een y ear s t o l i fe. T he St at e of M ary l and has l odged a det ai neragai ns tW arr en fors ervi ce of a conc urr entl i fe s ent ence pl us 25 y ear s i m pos ed upon convi ct i ons forai di ng and abe t t i ng m ur der , as s aul tw i th i nt entt o m ai m , and att empt ed r obbery , t o w hi ch he w i l l be r el eas ed i f par ol ed fr om hi s D . C . s ent ence .

W arr en, an i nm at e atthe U ni t ed St at es Peni t ent i aryi n L ew i s bur g, P e n n sy lv a n ia ( “ U S P -L e w isb u rg ” ), f iled a p e tit io n f

o r w rit o f

h a b e a s c o rp u s p u rsu a n t to 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 4 1 in U n ite d S ta te s D is tr ic t C o u rt f o r t h e M id d le D is tr ic t o f P e n n s y lv a n ia . H e cont ended thatthe U ni t ed St at es Par ol e C om m i s s i on’ s fai l ur e t o obt ai n a p sy c h o lo g ica l as se ss m e n t o f f u tu re d a n g e ro u sn e ss re n d e re d its d e c isio n to d e n yh im parol e arbi traryand capri ci ou s. W a rre n w a s f

irst c o n sid e re d f

o r p a ro le b yth e D istric t o f C o lu m b ia B o a rd o f

P a ro le in M a y1 9 9 5 . H e re c e iv e d a p o in t sc o re o f “ f o u r” u n d e r th e 1 9 8 7 D istric t o f C o lu m b ia par ol e gui del i nes , a s cor e w hi ch i ndi cat ed thatpar ol e s houl d be deni ed, and i n fac ti tw as deni ed. W arr en s ubs equent l yw as tr ans ferr ed t o the j ur i s di ct i on of the U ni t ed St at es Par ol e C om m i s s i on. I n a dec i s i on dat ed J une 15, 2000, the Par ol e C om m i s s i on, appl y i ng the 1987 D . C . gui del i nes , as s i gned hi m a s cor e of 3 poi nt s , w hi ch or di nar i l yw oul d m ean that h e w o u ld b e g ran ted p aro le. H o w ev er, th e P aro le C o m m issi o n d ec ided to d ep artI ns ofaras the part i es ar e fa m i l i arw i th the exa ctt extof W ar den D odr i l l ’ s r es pons e, 1 w e w i l l nots eti tfor th her e. 3 f ro m th e g u id e lin e s o n th e b a sis o f W a rre n ’s h a v in g c o m m itt e d th re e v io len t cr im e s w h ile on par ol e, and on the bas i s of the M ary l and convi ct i ons . T he Par ol e C om m i s s i on b e l i e v e d th a tW a r r e n p o s e d a s e r i o u s r i s k t o th e c o mmu n i ty , a n d r e q u e s t e d th a tth e D. C. D epart m entof C orr ect i ons orB ur eau of Pr i s ons conducta ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on of W a rre n ’s f

u tu re d a n g e ro u sn e ss . A re c o n sid e ra tio n h e a rin g w a s s c h e d u led f o r A p ril 2003. T h is p sy c h o lo g ica l ev a lu a tio n d id n o t tak e p lac e . O n M a rc h 1 1 , 2 0 0 3 , the P a ro le C om m i s s i on agai n comput ed W arr en’ s poi nts cor e as “thr ee, ” and a gai n deni ed par ol e, ci t i ng as the r eas on fordepart i ng fr om the gui del i nes the s er i ous r i s k pos ed byW arr en, as det erm i ned bythe thr ee vi ol entcr i m es comm i t t ed w hi l e on par ol e and the M ary l and
c o n v ictio n s. A g a in a re q u e st w a s m a d e f o r th e B u re a u o f

P riso n s to c o n d u c t a psy cho l og i cal evaluat i on of W arr en’s future dan gerousn ess. I n the meant i m e, W arr en fi l ed an a dm i ni s tr at i ve gr i evanc e w i th the B ur eau of Pr i s ons , as ki ng forthe ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on/r i s k as s es s m entt o be conduc t ed. W ar den D . S c o tt D o d rill reje c ted th e g rie v a n c e , ex p lain in g th a t B u re a u o f P riso n s p sy c h o lo g ists
ar e notr equi r ed bys t atut e t o pr edi ctfutur e dange r ous nes s , an as s es s m entthatr equi r es s peci al l ytr ai ned ps y chol ogi s t s . M or eover , the Par ol e C om m i s s i on m aygr antordeny parol e on the b asi s of i t s scor i ng sy st em w i tho ut r egard t o an i nd epen den tdan gerousn ess a ss e ss m e n t. 14

T he M agi s tr at e J udge fi l ed a Repor tand R ecomm endat i on, i n w hi ch he
r ecomm ended thatthe habe as pet i t i on be deni ed, beca us e the Par ol e C om m i s s i on’ s J une 2000 and M ar ch 2003 dec i s i ons deny i ng par ol e t o W arr en w er e notarbi tr aryand capr i ci ous . T he M agi s tr at e J udge al s o w arned W arr en abouthi s m anyhabea s pet i t i ons and the pos s i bl e appl i cabi l i tyof the abus e of the w r i tdoctr i ne. W arr en fi l ed obj ect i ons , i n w hi ch he r ei t er at ed hi s al l egat i on thathe w as bei ng d e n ied p a ro le f

o r a re a so n h e c o u ld n o t co n tro l – th e f a ilu re o f th e B O P to c o n d u c t a ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on – and he not ed thatpar ol e had a gai n been de ni ed t o hi m byt he Par ol e C om m i s s i on on M ay4, 2004. H e al s o al l eged thatthe M agi s tr at e J udge w as v in d ic tiv e a n d b ia s e d . In a n o rde r en tered o n N o v em b er 9 , 2 0 0 4 , the D istri ct C o u rtad o p ted th e R ep o rt
a n d Re c o mme n d a t i o n . Th e Co u r ta d d r e s s e d W a rr e n ’ s o b j e c t i o n s a n d d i s mi s s e d th e m, concl udi ng thatthe B O P coul d notbe for ced t o conducta ps y chol ogi cal eval uat i on of futur e dange r ous nes s , the Par ol e C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on t o denypar ol e w as r at i onal even i n the abs ence of an e val uat i on, and ther e w as no evi dence thatthe M agi s tr at e J udge w as vindi ct i ve o r bi ased. T he D i stri ctC ou rtdecli ned t o co nsi der W arr en’s ex p o st fa c to a rg u m e n t, co n c lu d in g th a t itw a s e ss e n tiallyth e sa m e a rg u m e n t co n sid e re d a n d re jec ted in W arr en v. D odr i l l , D . C . C i v. N o. 02- cv- 02254. L i ke the M agi s tr at e J udge, the D i s tr i ct C o u rt w a rn e d W a rre n a b o u t ab u sin g th e w rit b yn o t in c lu d in g a ll o f h is h a b e a s c laim s in
on e peti t i on . W arr ens app eal s.A s a D istric t o f C o lu m b ia p riso n e r W a rre n n e e d s a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili tyto 2 p r o c e e d , s e e M a d l e yv . U. S . P a r o l e Co mm’ n , 2 7 8 F . 3 d 1 3 0 6 , 1 3 0 9 ( D. C. Ci r . 2 0 0 2 ) ( D. C. pr i s oneri s s t at e pr i s onerforpurpos es of fe der al habea s corpus s t atut e) ; C oadyv. V aughn, 2 5 1 F .3 d 4 8 0 , 4 8 6 (3 d C ir. 2 0 0 1 ) (s tate p riso n e r in c u sto d yp u rsu a n t to ju d g m e n t o f sta te c o u rt m u st re lyo n 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 4 to b rin g c laim s c h a llen g in g e x e c u tio n o f h is se n ten c e ); 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(A ) (c e rtific a te o f a p p e a lab ili tyre q u ire d to p ro c e e d w ith a p p e a l wh e r e c o n t i n u e d d e t e n t i o n r e s u l t e d i n i t i a l l yf r o m s t a t e c o u r tj u d g me n t ) , a n d we h e re b yg ra n t it . 5 W e w ill a f

f irm . A c o u rt’s r o le in re v iew in g d e c isio n s b yth e U n ited S tate s P a ro le 2 C om m i s s i on on an appl i cat i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus i s l i m i t ed. See G ambi no v. M o rris, 1 3 4 F .3 d 1 5 6 , 1 6 0 (3 d C ir. 1 9 9 8 ). T h e a p p ro p ria te s tan d a rd o f re v iew is o n ly
w hetherther e i s a r at i onal bas i s i n the r ecor d forthe C om m i s s i on' s concl us i ons embodi ed i n i t s s t at ementof r eas ons . I d. ( ci t i ng Z anni no v. A rnol d, 531 F. 2d 687, 691 ( 3d C i r . 1976) ) . H ow ever , the courtm us tens ur e thatthe C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on i s not
a rb itr a ry a n d c a p ri c io u s , n o r b a s e d o n im p e rm is s ib le c o n s id e ra tio n s . Id . T he pr opr i etyof the D i s tr i ctC our t ’ s and M agi s tr at e J udge’ s concl us i ons conce rni ng the r at i onal i tyof the Par ol e C om m i s s i on’ s J une 2000 and M ar ch 2003 deci s i ons t o denypar ol e, and the abs ence of anyauthor i tyforcompel l i ng the B ur eau of Pr i s ons t o conducta futur e dange r ous nes s as s es s m ent , i s cl ear . W e al s o r ej ectas m erit less W arren ’s arg u m en t th at th e M ag istrate Ju d g e w as v ind ict ive a n d b iased . In add i t i on , the D i stri ctC ou rtproperl ydecli ned t o co nsi der W arr en’s ex p o st fa c to arg u m en t. W arren ’s arg u m en t con ce rnin g the ra ti o n ali tyo f th e P aro le C o m m issi o n ’s M ay1 1 , 2 0 0 4 d ec isi o n p rese n ts a so m ew h at close r qu esti o n , b u t, u lt im ately , w e a re per s uaded thatthe Par ol e C om m i s s i on’ s deci s i on w as r at i onal and notbas ed onJ udge A m br o di s s ent s , as he bel i eves thatthe Par ol e C om m i s s i on’ s r eas ons for 3 deny i ng par ol e kee p s hi ft i ng as M r . W arr en’ s “s cor e” goe s dow n. T hough he expr es s es n o v iew o n th e m e rits o f M r. W a rre n ’s c laim s, h e w o u ld re m a n d f o r th e D istric t C o u rt to t ake a c l oser l oo k at hi s ar gu m ents . im p e rm is s ib le c o n s id e ra tio n s . O n M ay11, 2004, the Par ol e C om m i s s i on comput ed W arr en’ s poi nts cor e as

“ tw o ,” a n d still i t d e n ied p a ro le u n d e r th e 1 9 8 7 D .C . g u id e lin e s. H o w e v e r, th e P a ro le C om m i s s i on once a gai n ci t ed as the r eas on fordepart i ng fr om the gui del i nes the s er i ous r i s k pos ed byW arr en, as det erm i ned bythe thr ee vi ol entcr i m es comm i t t ed w hi l e on p aro le an d the M ary land co n v ict ion s. T h is st atem en t of rea so n s fin d s a b asis in the rec o rd and i s notarbi tr aryand ca pr i ci ous . A ddi t i onal r eas ons appea rfordeny i ng par ol e, s uch as thatW arr en l acke d r emors e and ha d fai l ed t o part i ci pat e i n tr eatm entpr ogr ams, butthey do notunderm i ne the r at i onal bas i s forthe dec i s i on. W e w i l l aff

i r m the or derof the D i s tr i ctC our tdi s m i s s i ng the habe as pet i t i on. 3