Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Malloy v. Gray

United States District Court, D. Columbia.

February 3, 2015

GERALD J. MALLOY, Plaintiff,
v.
VINCENT C. GRAY et al., Defendants

GERALD J MALLOY, Plaintiff, Pro se, Bruceton Mills, WV.

For VINCENT C. GRAY, D.C. OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, D.C. JAIL, Defendants: Ana Lorraine Jara, LEAD ATTORNEY, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Washington, DC.

For U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, Defendant: Laura Emily Jennings, LEAD ATTORNEYS, U.S. ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, Washington, DC.

For CTF, Defendant: Anne Marie Orcutt, Daniel P. Struck, LEAD ATTORNEYS, STRUCK WIENEKE & LOVE, P.L.C., Chandler, AZ; Mariana Del Valle Bravo, Matthew D. Berkowitz, LEAD ATTORNEYS, CARR MALONEY PC, Washington, DC.

Page 54

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge.

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, sues the District of Columbia, the Corrections Corporation of America (" CCA" ), and the United States Parole Commission (" USPC" ) for allegedly detaining him beyond a USPC-imposed term of imprisonment following the revocation of his supervised release. Contending, among other wrongs, that the defendants violated the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, plaintiff seeks $25,000 in money damages. See Compl. at 12, 14, ECF No. 1-2.

Each defendant has moved for dispositive relief. See the District of Columbia Defendants' Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 4; Defendant CCA's Mot. to Dismiss and/or Mot. for Summ. J., ECF No. 7; Defendant USPC's Mot. to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summ. J., ECF No. 16. Plaintiff has opposed the District's motion, see Pl.'s Resp./Mot. to the D.C. Defs.' Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 20, and has filed a Motion to Introduce Significant Evidence to Respond to Motion by Defendants for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 22, which is construed also as his opposition to both USPC's and CCA's summary judgment motions.

Because the documentation the USPC has supplied disproves the premise of the complaint, the Court will grant summary judgment to the USPC and will grant the motions of the District of Columbia and its contractor CCA to dismiss.[1] See CCA's Mot. at 1 (" Defendant CCA owns and operates [the Central Treatment Facility in the District] . . . pursuant to a correctional services agreement between CCA and the District of Columbia." ). Consequently, plaintiff's motions will be denied.

I. BACKGROUND

As part of a " global plea agreement," the Superior Court of the District of Columbia

Page 55

sentenced plaintiff in June 2007 to a prison term of 36 months and a five-year term of supervised release. District of Columbia v. Malloy, No. 2007 CF2 002506 (D.C. S.Ct. Jun. 29, 2007); see District of Columbia v. Malloy, No. 2006 CF2 018298 (D.C. S.Ct. Jun. 29, 2007) (imposing 24-month concurrent terms); District of Columbia v. Malloy, 2006 CF2 025494 (D.C. S.Ct. Jun. 29, 2007) (imposing 12-month consecutive term). Plaintiff was released to supervision on May 5, 2010. See Def. USPC's Statement of Material Facts, ECF No. 16-2, Ex. 2 (Warrant Application). On July 2, 2010, the USPC, as the authority over District of Columbia parolees and supervisees, issued a warrant charging plaintiff with violating the terms of his release by failing to report to his supervising officer and to report a change in residence. Id. The United States Marshal executed the warrant on August 3, 2010, by arresting plaintiff and committing him to the District of Columbia Jail. Id., Ex. 3.

On October 14, 2010, the USPC conducted a revocation hearing at the District's Correctional Treatment Facility. Id., Ex. 4 (Hearing Summary). Based upon the testimony and documentation of plaintiff's supervising officer, the hearing examiner found that plaintiff had indeed violated the terms of his release but further found that plaintiff suffers from an untreated mental illness that " contributed to his violation behavior." Id. at 4. The hearing examiner recommended the revocation of plaintiff's supervised release and the imposition of a four-month prison term--below the applicable guideline range--beginning from the August 3, 2010 arrest date, followed by a 32-month term of supervised release. Id. The hearing examiner ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.