Isaac A. Cunningham v. Pennsylvania Parole Board, et al.

• Court: District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania
• Decided: February 18, 2026
• Docket: 3:25-cv-00232
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

ISAAC A. CUNNINGHAM, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 3:25-232 ) Judge Nora Barry Fischer PENNSYLVANIA PAROLE BOARD, et al., ) Magistrate Judge Keith Pesto ) Respondents. )

MEMORANDUM ORDER

AND NOW, this 18th day of February, 2026, upon consideration of the Report and Recommendation filed by United States Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto on August 1, 2025, (Docket No. 2), recommending that the § 2254 habeas petition filed by Petitioner Isaac A. Cunningham against the Pennsylvania Parole Board et al. be denied as Petitioner did not exhaust administrative remedies as to the challenged denial of his parole and his claims in his 2254 habeas petition were otherwise without merit and further directed that objections were due in 14 days such that objections from non-ECF users were due on August 18, 2025, the timely Objections and proposed Amended Habeas Petition filed by Petitioner on August 13 and 14, 2025, (Docket Nos. 3, 4), the Magistrate Judge’s subsequent Order of August 18, 2025 noting that the proposed amended habeas petition does not change his recommendation that the Petition be denied, (Docket No. 5), the matter having been reassigned to the undersigned for prompt disposition, and upon independent review of the record and de novo consideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation of August 1, 2025, (Docket No. 2), which is ADOPTED as the opinion of this Court, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioner’s Objections [3] are OVERRULED. To that end, Petitioner has failed to show that the denial of parole was a result of a violation of his Constitutional rights as he has not established that the Parole Board relied upon impermissible

factors and this Court is not permitted to second guess the Parole Board’s decisions or factual findings in reviewing a habeas petition. See e.g., Richardson v. Pennsylvania Board of Probation and Parole, 423 F.3d 282, 385 (3d Cir. 2005); Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F3d 480 (3d Cir. 2001); Mathis v. Superintendent Huntingdon SCI, 2025 WL 2694100 (3d Cir. 2025). Hence, Petitioner’s objections are overruled; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Petition (Docket No. 1) is DENIED and leave to amend is likewise denied as the proposed amended habeas petition (Docket No. 4) must be denied

for the same reasons; IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall issue as Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of a denial of a Constitutional right; and, FINALLY, an appropriate Judgment follows.

s/Nora Barry Fischer Nora Barry Fischer Senior U.S. District Judge cc/ecf: Magistrate Judge Keith A. Pesto

cc: Isaac A. Cunningham LA-5363 S.C.I. Houtzdale P.O. Box 1000 209 Institution Drive Houtzdale, PA 16698 (via first class mail)