Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.


United States District Court for the District of Columbia

April 1, 2005.

JOHN G. LANTION, Petitioner,

The opinion of the court was delivered by: EMMET SULLIVAN, District Judge


This matter is before the Court on consideration of petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Having considered the petition, the response to the Court's order to show cause, and the entire record of this case, the petition will be denied.


  Upon revocation of petitioner's probation, on December 2, 1992, the Superior Court of the District of Columbia imposed an aggregate prison sentence of 27 to 81 months. Resp't Resp., Ex. A-C (Judgment and Commitment Orders). The District of Columbia Board of Parole released petitioner on parole on September 13, 1995. Id., Ex. D (Certificate of Parole).

  On May 4, 1998, the D.C. Parole Board issued a parole violator warrant. Resp't Resp., Ex. E-F (Warrant and supporting documents). The warrant was lodged as a detainer because petitioner was serving a 5-year sentence for crimes committed in Virginia. Id., Ex. G (Detainer); Pet., ¶ 3. The United States Parole Commission, which assumed responsibility for parole matters for District of Columbia prisoners, let the detainer stand while petitioner completed service of the Virginia sentence. Resp't Resp., Ex. H (Notice of Action dated January 10, 2002). Upon petitioner's release from Virginia's custody, the warrant was executed on June 26, 2002. Id., Ex. I (Warrant).

  On August 14, 2002, the Parole Commission notified petitioner in writing of the charges against him, and on August 19, 2002 notified him of its probable cause finding. Resp't Resp., Ex. L (Warrant Application Supplement) & Ex. M (Letter from Parole Commission). The Parole Commission conducted petitioner's revocation hearing on October 29, 2002 at the Federal Detention Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Id., Ex. P (Revocation Hearing Summary). It revoked parole, and notified petitioner of this decision on or about November 8, 2002. Id., Ex. Q (Notice of Action). Petitioner was released on parole on November 3, 2004, and remains under supervision until September 23, 2005. Id., Ex. S (Certificate of Parole).


  Petitioner contends that the Parole Commission lost its authority to revoke his parole in 2002 because it failed to conduct a timely revocation hearing. He correctly asserts that the applicable regulation requires that a revocation hearing be held within 90 days of execution of a parole violator warrant. See 28 C.F.R. § 2.102(f). The record demonstrates that his revocation hearing took place on October 29, 2002, approximately125 days after the execution of the warrant on June 26, 2002. In the interim, the record shows that the Federal Bureau of Prisons was to designate petitioner to a particular institution so that a revocation hearing could take place at that institution before September 23, 2002. See Resp't Resp., Ex. N (Letter from Parole Commission Case Analyst to Bureau of Prisons regional directors). If a parole revocation hearing is untimely, the available remedy is a writ of mandamus directing the Parole Commission to conduct a hearing. Jones v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 903 F.2d 1178, 1185 (8th Cir. 1990) ("[T]he only remedy available when the Commission fails to hold a timely hearing is . . . to require the Commission to give the petitioner a fair hearing."); Sutherland v. McCall, 709 F.2d 730, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Absent a showing that the delay was unreasonable or prejudicial to his defense at the revocation hearing, there is no other remedy available. Sutherland v. McCall, 709 F.2d at 732. Furthermore, petitioner's release on parole renders the question moot.


  A writ of habeas corpus shall not extend to a District of Columbia prisoner unless he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) (1994). Petitioner has made no such showing, and, therefore the Court must deny his petition. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued this same date.


© 1992-2005 VersusLaw Inc.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.