Summary
In Tyler v. Gillis, 2006 WL 2038398, at *8 (M.D. Pa. July 19, 2006), the petitioner did proffer some statistics that parole rates dropped post-1996, but the court held that the statistics were not sufficiently individualized.
Summary of this case from Inmates of Penn. Dept. of Corrections v. CorbettOpinion
Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-2345.
July 19, 2006
ORDER
AND NOW, this 19th day of July, 2006, upon consideration of the report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 26), to which no objections were filed, recommending that the petition (Doc. 1) for habeas corpus relief be denied, and following an independent review of record, it appearing that petitioner has not demonstrated that the Parol Board used new criteria from the 1996 Amendment to the Pennsylvania Parole Act in evaluating petitioner for release, or that the applicable criteria created a real risk of increasing the measure of petitioner's punishment, see Shaffer v. Meyers, 163 F. App'x 111, 113 (3d Cir. 2006) ("[A petitioner] must show not only that there has been a change in law or policy which has given retrospective effect[,] but also that its retrospective application to him created a real risk of increasing the measure of his punishment."); Brown v. Williams, No. 4:06-CV-0851, 2006 WL 1896166, at *4 (M.D. Pa. Jul. 7, 2006) (same); see also Mickens-Thomas v. Vaughn, 321 F.3d 374, 384 (3d Cir. 2003) (stating that, for ex post facto challenges, the petitioner must demonstrate that the law in question "disadvantages the offender affected by it"), it is hereby ORDERED that:
See 42 PA. CON. STAT. ANN. § 9718.1.
1. The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 26) is ADOPTED.
2. The petition (Doc. 1) for habeas corpus relief is DENIED.
3. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.