The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHEY
OF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE CHARLES R. RICHEY
This matter is before the Court on Petitioner's motion for a writ of habeas corpus. For the reasons set forth herein, the Court will deny Petitioner's motion but it will order the Parole Commission to conduct a parole revocation hearing for Petitioner as soon as practicable and not later than thirty (30) days from the date hereof.
Petitioner was convicted of theft of an interstate shipment on July 16, 1976 and sentenced to a term of 5 years imprisonment. He was paroled on April 1, 1979. On October 14, 1980 Petitioner was arrested again and indicted on counts of forgery and attempted uttering. Petitioner also failed to appear for urinalysis on December 9, 1980 as instructed by his parole officer. On the basis of these two violations of the conditions of his parole -- rearrest and failure to appear for drug aftercare -- Case Analyst Michael Santella submitted a warrant application to the Commission on January 30, 1981 to order that Petitioner be retaken into custody. A warrant for Petitioner's arrest was signed that same day and Petitioner was taken into custody on March 3, 1981. On March 10, 1981, Frederick Foster, a parole officer, conducted a preliminary interview of Petitioner, at which time he requested a parole revocation hearing.
On March 11, 1981 Petitioner pled guilty to the forgery charge on which he had been indicted in October. Case Analyst Santella was informed of the plea by Parole Officer Foster and submitted a supplement to the first warrant application to that effect on March 23, 1981. Santella also wrote a letter to Petitioner on that day. The letter explained the basis of the revocation proceedings, notified Petitioner of a finding of probable cause and informed him that he was to be transferred to a federal institution for a parole hearing. Santella enclosed a copy of the warrant application and portions of the preliminary interview.
On April 7, 1981 an order was teletyped to the United States Marshall's Office to transport Petitioner from the District of Columbia Jail, where he was being held, to the federal institution at Danbury for a parole revocation hearing scheduled for June 3, 1981. Before the date of the hearing, however, Petitioner was charged with several new criminal offenses. On April 16, 1981, Petitioner was charged with grand larceny. On May 12, 1981 he was sentenced on the original forgery conviction to between three years and six months imprisonment. The next day he was again charged with forgery and uttering. On June 24, 1981, Petitioner pled guilty to the lesser included offenses of attempted uttering and receiving stolen property. However, the Commission was not even informed that new charges were pending against Petitioner until July 15, 1981 -- more than one month after Petitioner's scheduled parole revocation hearing.
On August 20, 1981 Petitioner was sentenced to serve consecutive terms of 300 days for each offense. The new warrant was lodged as a detainer. Subsequently, the Commission conducted a dispositional review and determined that the detainer should remain in effect. Petitioner was informed of this detainer on April 15, 1982 and a dispositional revocation hearing was scheduled for March 12, 1983, which date would be accelerated if Petitioner was released to the federal detainer prior to that date. On July 7, 1982 Petitioner was so released and a parole revocation hearing was scheduled for October 7, 1982.
Petitioner filed a pro se petition for a writ of habeas corpus on August 18, 1982. This Court issued an order to show cause why the writ should not be granted. The Court also appointed counsel to represent Petitioner, which counsel submitted a Reply to Commission's Return and Answer to Order to Show Cause, on Petitioner's behalf. Petitioner now remains incarcerated at the D.C. Jail on this Court's order. His scheduled parole revocation hearing was stayed by the Court's order and, therefore, no hearing has yet been held.
JURISDICTION IS PROPER IN THIS COURT BECAUSE PETITIONER IS CONFINED IN THIS DISTRICT
Respondent argues that Petitioner's application should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because Respondent, the United States Parole Commission, is now located in Maryland. However, this argument is misconceived. A Petitioner seeking a writ of habeas corpus may file a petition either in the district of his confinement or in the District in which his custodian is present. See Rheuark v. Wade, 608 F.2d 304, 305 (8th Cir. 1979). See also McCall v. Swain, 166 U.S. App. D.C. 214, 510 F.2d 167 (D.C. Cir. 1975). Petitioner, here, is confined at the D.C. Jail, therefore, jurisdiction is proper in this Court even though Respondent the Parole Commission is located in Maryland. Additionally, recent decisions have emphasized that the important consideration is that the Court considering the petition must be able to reach the respondent through service of process. E.g., Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court, 410 U.S. 484, 495, 35 L. Ed. 2d 443, 93 S. Ct. 1123 (1973). If service can be perfected, then the Court can issue a writ "within its jurisdiction." Id. Here service of process has been achieved and thus the Court is acting within its jurisdiction. Finally, the Court ...