Opinion ID: 3011952
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: federal court petition

Text: Hunterson filed his writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in February 1998. The pro se petition alleged a number of violations of his constitutional rights, and generally accused the Parole Board of being involved in a vast and complex conspiracy in an effort to return Hunterson to prison. Most of Hunterson’s petition is dedicated largely to recitations of facts and allegations of corruption, with little in the way of explication of the claims in legal terms. According to Hunterson, the Parole Board was motivated not by a concern that Hunterson posed a danger to society, but by its anger at Hunterson and his fiancee, Deborah Hansen, for exposing the improper activities of the New Jersey Department of Corrections and the Parole Board. Hunterson claims that the Parole Board’s actions violated his federal constitutional rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The petition does not make clear precisely how he believes that 9 each of these rights was violated. In several instances he simply says that the hearings were held without his being afforded constitutional protections, or he asserts in conclusory fashion that an individual’s action was unconstitutional. Of course, as this is a pro se petition, we will construe it liberally. See, e.g., United States v. Garth, 188 F.3d 99, 108 (3d Cir. 1999) (providing that we use a more forgiving lens . . . to construe pro se habeas petitions). Among his more specific allegations, Hunterson claims: 1) His First Amendment rights were violated because he was incarcerated as punishment for speaking out publicly against the Department of Corrections and Parole Board. 2) The New Jersey Supreme Court violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection each time it reversed the Appellate Division. 3) Referral to the three-member panel was based on an unconstitutional hearing. 4) The five-year FET was excessive and violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. 5) The Board’s subsequent confirmation of the fiveyear FET violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights and his Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. 6) His September 29, 1995 hearing was not conducted before an impartial hearing officer in violation of his due process and equal protection rights. He further claims his constitutional rights were specifically violated during the September 1995 hearing in five ways: 1) reliance on a three-year-old threat; 2) witness (DeFabio) was not produced, and therefore his procedural due process rights were violated; 3) hearsay and vouching violated his due process and equal protection rights; 10 4) use of urine tests, ruled inadmissible by the Appellate Division, during questioning of witnesses, violated his Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights; and, 5) the Special Prosecutor removed all mitigating files in an effort to prejudice the hearing’s outcome in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment rights. The District Court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1343. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.SS 1291 and 2253. No certificate of appealability is required for the state to appeal the District Court’s order. Fed. R. App. P. 22(b)(3). And, [b]ecause the District Court relied exclusively on the state court record and did not hold an evidentiary hearing, our review of its decision is plenary.7 Moore v. Morton, 255 F.3d 95, 103 (3d Cir. 2001).