The opinion of the court was delivered by: Rosemary M. Collyer United States District Judge
Michael R. Rockingham, proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Petition") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to obtain release from incarceration, reinstatement to the Next Step Treatment Program, and a new revocation hearing. The United States Parole Commission ("Commission"), which revoked Mr. Rockingham's parole and ordered him to serve 12 months before a new presumptive parole date, responds that its revocation decision was proper and based entirely on Mr. Rockingham's own admissions that he had used illegal drugs and failed to submit to drug testing, two conditions of his parole. Finding that the Commission had sufficient evidentiary bases for its issuance of a parole violator warrant and its determination that Mr. Rockingham violated the conditions of his parole, the Court will deny the Petition.
Mr. Rockingham is currently serving a parole violator sentence. He was originally sentenced to an aggregate term of imprisonment of 12 to 36 years for his convictions for robbery and armed robbery in District of Columbia Superior Court Case Nos. F 2415-82 and F 2434-82. See Commission's Opposition to Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Resp't Opp'n"), Ex. A (Sentence Monitoring Computation Data), Ex. B (Judgment and Commitment Order for F 2415-82), Ex. C (Judgment and Commitment Order for F 2434-82). Mr. Rockingham was first released on parole from that aggregate sentence on June 19, 1992, with an original full-term sentence date of April 28, 2018. See id., Ex. D (Certificate of Parole). His parole had been revoked three times prior to the instant matter for violations of conditions of parole. See id., Exs. E-N.
Events leading up to Mr. Rockingham's current period of incarceration originated on August 24, 2006, when the Commission officially reprimanded him for using illegal drugs and alcohol and failing to submit to drug testing. See id., Ex. P (Official Letter of Reprimand), Ex. Q (Alleged Violation(s) Report). In its letter, the Commission warned that Mr. Rockingham's continued violation of parole could result in his arrest and return to jail. Id., Ex. P. Nonetheless, Mr. Rockingham continued to miss required drug testing appointments, tested positive for cocaine and opiates usage, and was reported to have been dismissed by the New Step Treatment Program, attendance at which was a condition of his parole. See id., Ex. R (Warrant and Warrant Application). On March 5, 2007, the Commission issued a parole violator warrant for Mr. Rockingham's arrest; he was arrested on the warrant on March 15, 2007. Id. at 5-6. Shortly after his arrest, he received a probable cause hearing to determine whether to continue with parole revocation proceedings. See id., Ex. S (D.C. Probable Cause Hearing Digest). Although Mr. Rockingham denied the charges, the Commission's hearing examiner found probable cause for all of them. Id. at 2-3. Thereafter, on April 1, 2007, his parole supervising officer wrote to the Commission with information about Mr. Rockingham's additional positive drug tests. See id., Ex. T (Addendum to Alleged Violation Report).
A Final Parole Revocation Hearing for Mr. Rockingham was held on April 16, 2007. See id., Ex. U (Hearing Summary). Mr. Rockingham, represented by counsel, admitted to using illegal drugs and admitted to failing to submit to drug testing, although he insisted that he had missed the tests because of work commitments. Id. at 2. Mr. Rockingham denied that he had violated the condition that he attend the drug treatment program and stated that he had missed some appointments with prior approval due to his wedding. Id. at 2-3. Based on his admissions, the Commission found that Mr. Rockingham had violated the conditions of his release on parole by failing to submit to drug testing and by using dangerous and habit-forming drugs. See id., Ex. V (Notice of Action). The Commission made no findings and reached no conclusions as to whether Mr. Rockingham had also violated his special drug treatment condition because there was insufficient evidence to support the charge. Id. at 2. The Commission revoked Mr. Rockingham's parole and ordered him to be re-paroled on March 14, 2008, after a term of 12 months in custody. Id. at 1. This was a decision at the lower end of the 12-16 month re-parole guideline range. Id. at 2.
Mr. Rockingham filed his Petition on May 22, 2007, at a time when he was in custody at the D.C. Jail.*fn2 He advances eleven grounds in support.
Petition Grounds 1 through 3 contest certain facts in a January 30, 2007 report from his supervision officer; since these facts had no bearing on his parole revocation, the Court will not review them. Ground 4 concerns a statement that Mr. Rockingham was absent from the Next Step program on December 27-29, 2006, in violation of the attendance policy, and that he was therefore discharged from the program on January 4, 2007. Petition at 2 ¶ D. Mr. Rockingham insists that he did attend Next Step on December 27 and was excused to get married on December 28-29, 2006. Id. ¶ D(1). Since the Commission made no findings on this point to Mr. Rockingham's detriment and did not rely on it to revoke his parole, the Court need not consider it further. Grounds 5 through 9 contest additional facts in the January 30, 2007 report. Those facts had no bearing on his parole revocation, so the Court will not address them here.
Ground 10 of Mr. Rockingham's Petition challenges the warrant for his arrest:
Ground Ten: The Warrant Application was sought under highly prejudicial circumstances, wherefore officers for the Respondent, while acting in their official capacity, under color of law, Mrs. Rhonda A. Shelton, Case Analyst, and Mrs. Ratima Hicks subscribed to a collaborative effort to have and insure a negative outcome, where Petitioner's attempts to [complete the] program were concern[ed] . . . [sic]
(1.) Mrs. Rhonda A. Shelton, case analyst, was Petitioners' [sic] Parole Officer at one time which surely would place her to[o] close to the situation to render an objective decision that would not be viewed as prejudicial regardless of what her decision was; be it for or against the Petitioner. She should have recuse[d] or precluded herself from any and all assessment, officially associated with ...