FERDELL F. HARVEY, Petitioner,
U.S. FEDERAL PROBATION & PAROLE/COURT SERVICE AND OFFENDER SUPERIVISION AGENCY FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Respondents.
MEMORANDUM OPINION 
ROBERT L. WILKINS, District Judge.
Petitioner, a District of Columbia felon on supervised release, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. At the commencement of this action on October 1, 2012, petitioner claimed that he was "under the jurisdiction of the United States Federal Probation and Parole, but being supervise[d] by the District of Columbia, Court Services. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Custody in the District of Columbia ("Pet.") [Dkt. # 1] at 8. In a rather confusing argument, petitioner claims that the three-year supervised release portion of his federal sentence "should have absorb[ed]" the remaining time on his D.C. sentence; therefore, he should be under the supervision of the U.S. Probation Office rather than the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency ("CSOSA"), which supervises D.C. Code offenders who are under the authority of the United States Parole Commission. Pet. at 5, 8; see Fed. Resp't's Mot. to Dismiss the Pet'r's Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus ("Resp't's Mot.") [Dkt. # 8] at 1 (summarizing petitioner's claim); D.C. Code § 24-133(c) (listing CSOSA's functions).
In their motion filed on January 2, 2013, respondents contend that the petition is moot since, as a result of petitioner's completion of the D.C. sentence, "the Commission's and CSOSA's supervision have been terminated and [petitioner's] federal supervision has recently been transferred to U.S. Probation for the District of Columbia." Resp't's Mot. at 6; see id. at 3. Petitioner "agrees in-part with the respondents and respectfully disagree[s] with the respondents." Pro Se Pet'r Ferdell Harvey[s] Mot. in Response to the Resp't's Mot. to Dismiss the Pet'r's Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. # 9]. Petitioner does not dispute that he is no longer under CSOSA's supervision and is under the U.S. Probation Office's supervision. Rather, he disagrees with "respondents to motion the Court to Dismiss the Evidentiary Nature of the language of the U.S. Parole Commission dated May 29, 2003 (Notice of Action) which was to run concurrent with [the federal sentence], and not consecutive...." Id. at 1. Notwithstanding the fact that the Commission's parole decision in 2003, see Resp't's Ex. F, has nothing to do with the issue at hand, petitioner's suggestion that his federal sentence was to run concurrently with his D.C. sentence is belied by the record. See Resp't's Ex. E (D.N.J. Judgment at 2) ("The term of imprisonment... shall run consecutively to the defendant's imprisonment under any previous state or federal sentence); see also Harvey v. Driver, No. 1:06CV180, 2008 WL 149129, at *2, n.2 (N.D.W.Va. Jan. 11, 2008) (Petitioner's "federal conviction was ordered to run consecutive to his [D.C.] parole violator term.").
For the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant respondent's motion to dismiss this habeas action as moot. A separate Order ...