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
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
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 ...