UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
September 17, 2010
CHARLES EDWARD JONES, JR., PLAINTIFF,
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Ellen Segal Huvelle United States District Judge
In this civil action filed pro se under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, plaintiff, a District of Columbia prisoner, claims that the United States Parole Commission denied him due process, abused its discretion and subjected him to double jeopardy during parole revocation proceedings. He claims that as a result, he has served "180 days consecutive twice," (Compl. at 5), and seeks reinstatement of "time from 10-1-04 to 7-3-09 and [termination of] parole F-3906-93." Compl. at 5. Defendant moves to dismiss the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) [Dkt. No. 14] and plaintiff moves for partial summary judgment under Rule 56 [Dkt. No. 16].
"[W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); accord Razzoli v. Fed'l Bureau of Prisons, 230 F.3d 371, 373 (D.C. Cir. 2000); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 809 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (en banc). Plaintiff's claim for habeas corpus relief, based on the same set of facts underlying this action, is the subject of a separate action pending before the undersigned judge, Jones. v. Wainwright, Civ. Action 10-1186 (ESH). The Court therefore will grant defendant's motion to dismiss, deny plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment*fn1 and dismiss this § 1983 action without prejudice.*fn2 A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.