Bowen v. Ryan , 248 F. App'x 302 ( 2007 )

Opinions of the United
2007 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
9-26-2007
Bowen v. Ryan
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 06-5017
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007
Recommended Citation
"Bowen v. Ryan" (2007). 2007 Decisions. Paper 371.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2007/371
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2007 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
NO. 06-5017
________________
JOSEPH BOWEN,
Appellant
vs.
JOSEPH RYAN; JOHN STEPANIK; KENNETH D. KYLER; FREDERICK K. FRANK;
A. S. WILLIAMSON; G. N. PATRICK; C. R. MYERS; FRANK D. GILLIS;
R. E. JOHNSON; B. L. LANE; J. PIAZZA; JEFFREY A. BEARD; DAVID T. OWENS;
RAYMOND CLAIMER; JOSEPH LEHMAN; MARTIN F. HORN
____________________________________
On Appeal From the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Pennsylvania
(D.C. Civ. No. 05-cv-01512)
District Judge: Honorable James M. Munley
_______________________________________
Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)
September 21, 2007
BEFORE: FISHER, ALDISERT and WEIS, CIRCUIT JUDGES
Filed: September 26, 2007
_______________________
OPINION
_______________________
PER CURIAM.
Joseph Bowen, acting pro se, appeals an order of the United States District
Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania dismissing his complaint under Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(6).
Bowen is an inmate currently confined at the State Correctional Institution
at Coal Township, Pennsylvania. He has been held in Administrative Custody there and
at other state institutions since October of 1984. Shortly after being confined in
Administrative Custody, Bowen was placed on the Restricted Release List by the
Secretary of the Department of Corrections. While Bowen remained entitled to periodic
review of his confinement status and eligible for release into the general population, being
on the Restricted Release List entailed some additional procedural barriers to
reclassification. Until 2004, the Prison Review Committee (“PRC”), which assessed
Bowen’s status every 90 days, had the authority to release him from Administrative
Custody. Since May of 2004, however, the PRC has been empowered only to
recommend release to the Secretary or his designee, who retain the power to authorize
Bowen’s return to general population.
Bowen brought this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that placement on
the Restricted Release List without notice and an opportunity to be heard violated his due
process rights. He also claimed that his extended confinement in Administrative Custody
amounts to cruel and unusual punishment, and that the 2004 changes to the review
procedures violated both his due process rights and Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth
Documents Law. The District Court overruled Bowen’s objections and adopted the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation that the Complaint be dismissed under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). The Court denied as moot Bowen’s request for appointment of
counsel.
We exercise jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and undertake
plenary review of the District Court’s dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6), accepting as true all
factual allegations in the complaint and viewing them in the light most favorable to the
non-moving party. See AT&T Corp. v. JMC Telecom, LLC, 470 F.3d 525, 529 (3d Cir.
2006). The decision to deny counsel is reviewed for abuse of discretion. See Parham v.
Johnson, 126 F.3d 454, 457 (3d Cir. 1997).
Appellant’s claim that he was placed on the Restricted Release List without
due process was properly dismissed. Placement on this List did not deprive Bowen of his
liberty, privileges, or any other constitutionally protected liberty interest. See Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). To the extent that the complaint can be read as
challenging the process by which Bowen was initially confined in Administrative
Custody, it fails to allege the lack of a hearing, inadequate opportunity to be heard, or
other procedural shortcoming that would implicate his due process rights.1
We agree with the District Court’s analysis of Bowen’s constitutional
challenge to his confinement in Administrative custody. While twenty years in
administrative custody is clearly an atypical and significant hardship sufficient to trigger
the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause, implicating a liberty interest within
the contemplation of the Fourteenth Amendment, the procedures provided by the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections satisfy the minimal constitutional standards for
due process. See Shoats, 213 F.3d at 143-45. Bowen was afforded an initial opportunity
1
While we do not disagree with the District Court’s decision to treat parts of this
claim as barred by the applicable statute of limitations, we instead follow the course taken
in Shoats v. Horn, 213, F.3d 140, 145-46 (3d Cir. 2000), and address the due process
claim on the merits.
to be heard upon confinement, and periodic review of his status. See id. at 146-47. Like
the District Court, we reject appellant’s conclusory allegations that the periodic reviews
by the PRC were rote or meaningless. The 2004 change in the review process neither
made it meaningless, as the PRC retains the power to recommend release to an official
with the power to order it, nor violated Pennsylvania’s Commonwealth Documents Law.
See Small v. Horn, 722 A.2d 664, 669-70 (Pa. 1998). Appellant has not suggested that
the denial of court-appointed counsel constituted an abuse of discretion.
Accordingly, we will affirm the judgment of the District Court.