United States District Court, D. Columbia.
HARRY J. BENNETT, Petitioner,
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent
HARRY T. BENNETT, Petitioner, Pro se, Washington, DC.
For PETTIFORD - U.S.P.C., United States Parole Commission, Respondent: Timothy W. Lucas, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Washington, DC.
Ketanji Brown Jackson, United States District Judge.
In this action for a writ of habeas corpus filed in November 2013, Petitioner, a D.C. Code felon, claims tat he was denied due process during parole revocation proceedings because the " warrant issued was not under oath and supported by affirmation as required under the 4th Amendment." (Pet. at 5.) In addition, Petitioner claims that his custody is " illegal" because the case supporting the parole violation " was dismissed and no probable cause [was] found," and because his sentence has expired. ( Id. )
In response to the court's order to show cause why the writ should not issue, Respondent United States Parole Commission (" USPC" ) asserts that no due process violation has occurred and that Petitioner's incarceration is legal insofar as he has had his parole revoked seven times and has not completed his sentence. (USPC's Opp'n to Pet'r's Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, ECF No. 7.) On March 5, 2014, Petitioner was advised about replying to Respondent's opposition and the possibility of a summary dismissal if he failed to reply by April 15, 2014. (Order, ECF No. 8.) Petitioner was directed specifically to the following provision governing habeas actions:
The allegations of a return to the writ of habeas corpus or of an answer to an order to show cause in a habeas corpus proceeding, if not [responded to], shall be accepted as true except to the extent that the judge finds from the evidence that they are not true.
28 U.S.C. § 2248. Petitioner has neither replied to Respondent's opposition nor sought additional time to do so. Based on Respondent's documented opposition, the Court finds no grounds for issuing the writ and, therefore, will deny the petition and dismiss the case.
Petitioner is serving a 30-year sentence imposed in June 1986 by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for voluntary manslaughter and robbery. Petitioner was first released to parole supervision in February 1998 with an expiration date of June 9, 2016. (USPC's Opp'n, Ex. 2.) The instant petition is based on events that ensued after petitioner's seventh release to parole.
Petitioner was released to parole on February 22, 2012, with an expiration date of May 23, 2023 ( Id., Ex. 14.) On August 20, 2012, Petitioner's Community Supervision Officer requested issuance of a parole violator warrant based on Petitioner's failure
to report for supervision and other administrative violations (Ex. 15). The USPC issued the warrant on September 12, 2012, charging Petitioner with " Failure to Report to Supervising Officer as Directed" and " Violation of Special Condition (Drug Aftercare)" (Ex.19). On April 20, 2013, Petitioner was arrested in the District of Columbia and charged in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia with unauthorized use of a vehicle (" criminal charge" ) (Ex. 20). As a result, the USPC supplemented the violator warrant on April 30, 2013, to include a law violation charge (Ex.21). The United States Marshal executed the violator warrant by arresting Petitioner on May 17, 2013 (Ex.22), and the USPC found probable cause to detain Petitioner following a hearing on May 28, 2013, at which Petitioner was represented by counsel from the District of Columbia's Public Defender Service (Ex. 23).
The Superior Court dismissed the criminal charge on July 5, 2013 (Ex. 24), and Petitioner filed this case from the District of Columbia's Correctional Treatment Facility on November 19, 2013. Following a parole revocation hearing on February 6, 2014 (Ex. 25), the USPC adopted the hearing examiner's recommendation to revoke Petitioner's parole on February 12, 2014 without relying on the law violation charge ...