MEMORANDUM OPINION
TANYA
S. CHUTKAN United States District Judge.
This
matter is before the court on Defendants' Motion to
Dismiss Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 42),
Plaintiff's Motion in Opposition to Defendants[']
Answer to Plaintiff['s] Amended Complaint (ECF No. 45)
and his Motion under Writ Madam[us] to Have Prompt
Evidentiary Hearing on the Matters at Hand That Can Be Viewed
By Transcripts (ECF No. 46). For the reasons discussed below,
the court grants Defendants' motion, dismisses
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint in its entirety, and
denies Plaintiff's motions as moot.
I.
BACKGROUND
A.
Plaintiff's Criminal Conviction, Sentence, and
Supervised Release
On
October 5, 2010, police arrested Plaintiff for unlawful
distribution of a controlled substance (cocaine).
(See Mem. of P. & A in Support of Defs.'
Mot. to Dismiss (“Defs.' Mem.”), Ex. 1 at 2.)
A jury found Plaintiff guilty, and on December 6, 2011, the
Superior Court of the District of Columbia imposed a 48-month
term of imprisonment followed by a five-year term of
supervised release. (Id., Ex. 2 at 1.) The
supervised release term commenced on May 12, 2014, and
Plaintiff was to remain under the supervision of the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of
Columbia (“CSOSA”), see D.C. Code §
24-133(c)(2), through May 11, 2019, (Defs.' Mem. Ex. 2 at
1.) Barely four months passed when Plaintiff committed the
first of many violations of the conditions of supervised
release. (See generally id., Ex. 3 at 1-2.)
On
August 5, 2015, Jequan S. Jackson, Case Analyst with the
United States Parole Commission (“USPC”),
recommended that a supervision revocation warrant be issued,
(id., Ex. 3 at 2.) The USPC charged Plaintiff with
seven violations of the conditions of his supervised release
based on the reports of Kyndall Johnson, Plaintiff's
supervision officer (“CSO”).[1] (See
id., Ex. 3 at 1-2.) For example, Plaintiff's urine
specimens tested positive for alcohol on two occasions and
for cocaine on 10 occasions, (id., Ex. 3 at 1-2, )
and he failed to comply with a graduated sanction, use of a
global positioning system tracking device, when he
“failed to charge his GPS as directed by his
supervising officer, ” prior to his “remov[al]
from the GPS program as a result of a master tamper alert on
7/15/2015, ” (Id., Ex. 3 at 2.)
Commissioner
Charles Masserone signed the warrant on August 19, 2015.
(Id., Ex. 3 at 3.) A deputy United States Marshal
executed the warrant on October 7, 2016 at the D.C. Jail
where Plaintiff was detained, (id., Ex. 4 at 1, )
following his arrest in the District of Columbia on October
4, 2016, for distribution of a controlled substance (crack
cocaine) and possession of a controlled substance (crack
cocaine), (see id., Ex. 5 at 1.) Jackson
supplemented the warrant application by adding an eighth
charge, a law violation, arising from Plaintiff's arrest.
(Id., Ex. 6.)
Hearing
examiner Kelley conducted Plaintiff's probable cause
hearing on October 14, 2016, and he found probable cause to
detain Plaintiff pending a supervision revocation hearing.
(See generally id., Ex. 7.) Rebecca Vogel of the
Public Defender Service represented Plaintiff at the probable
cause hearing. (See id., Ex. 7 at 1.) In
anticipation of a supervision revocation hearing, Plaintiff
had an opportunity to request the attendance of adverse
witnesses. (Id., Ex. 7 at 6-7.) Notwithstanding
notice that his “failure to make a request for the
attendance of any adverse witness is a waiver of [his]
opportunity to confront and cross-examine that witness at a
revocation hearing, ” (id., Ex. 7 at 6, )
Plaintiff did not request an adverse witness.
Hearing
examiner Joseph M. Pacholski conducted Plaintiff's
revocation hearing on November 30, 2016, (id., Ex. 8
at 1, ) at which CSO Kerri Guest-Uzzle testified, (see
generally id., Ex. 8 at 1-4.) Plaintiff waived counsel
and represented himself. (Id., Ex. 8 at 1.)
Pacholski noted Plaintiff's assertion that the USPC
lacked jurisdiction over the matter and Plaintiff's
objection to the absence of adverse witnesses, particularly
the lab technician who tested Plaintiff's urine specimens
and the technician who would have monitored his GPS device.
(Id., Ex. 8 at 2.) Pacholski “pointed out to
[Plaintiff] that he did not request . . . witnesses at the
Probable Cause hearing, ” (id., Ex. 8 at 2, )
and that he waived counsel, (id., Ex. 8 at 1, ) for
the revocation hearing. Based largely on the CSO
Guest-Uzzle's testimony and reports prepared by CSO
Johnson, Pacholski found that Plaintiff violated seven
supervised release conditions (Charge Nos. 1-7). (Defs.'
Mem., Ex. 8 at 4.) The police officer who arrested Plaintiff
on October 4, 2016 did not appear at the revocation hearing,
and Pacholski made no finding with respect to Charge No. 8
due to the lack of evidence. (Id., Ex. 8 at 4.)
Pacholski
recommended revocation of supervised release and
Plaintiff's return to custody for a term of 22 months
from the date of the warrant's execution. (Id.,
Ex. 8 at 5.) His recommendation exceeded the ordinary
guideline range of 12 to 16 months for the following reasons:
Our subject argued every point and did not take
responsibility for any of his behavior. Our subject did not
provide any information as to why he was able to have 4
months of satisfactory compliance and then not comply with
any terms other than he was sick and he feared for his
safety. Our subject did not explain what steps he took to
resume satisfactory compliance and did not feel he needed to
explain other than he was sick. The subject's sickness
was not an extended stay at a hospital and did not hinder his
ability to contact his [community supervision officer]. Our
subject did not appear he was amenable for supervision. Our
subject did excuse his [Public Defender Service] attorney and
wanted to represent himself. Our subject was upset that he
did not receive a Probable Cause hearing within 5 days but
did not explain how this delay hindered his ability to defend
himself against the charges. Our subject is a poorer risk
because he has 24 convictions and 10 commitments that are not
fully accounted for in the SFS.
Our subject after the hearing became irate and called the
Examiner a number [of] racial terms. The subject then slammed
a hearing room door and caused a security issue at the
institution [prompting] staff to respond. Some of the
incident could be heard in the hearing room and the record
was activated again to secure the evidence[.]
(Id., Ex. 8 at 5.)
Executive
reviewer Lynne Jenkins, after listening to the last 20
minutes of the recording of the hearing, agreed that
revocation was warranted and recommended a slightly higher
sanction: a 26-month term of imprisonment. (Id., Ex.
8 at 5.) She noted Plaintiff's October 4, 2016 arrest,
and the “very poor attitude” Plaintiff exhibited
“during and after the hearing, ” indicating that
“he is not amenable to supervision.”
(Id., Ex. 8 at 5.) The USPC concurred: it revoked
Plaintiff's supervised release and ordered his return to
custody for 26 months.[2] (Id., Ex. 9 at 1.) Plaintiff sent
four submissions to the National Appeals Board, which
ultimately affirmed the USPC's decision. (Id.,
Ex. 10 at 1.)
B.
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint
Plaintiff
filed his original complaint in the Superior Court on
December 7, 2016. (ECF No. 1-1.) Defendants removed the case
on March 7, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) This court construed the
complaint as raising constitutional challenges to the
supervision revocation proceedings, demanding monetary
compensation for Plaintiff's alleged unlawful
incarceration, and demanding Plaintiff' immediate release
from custody. Plaintiff amended his complaint, shifting focus
from the USPC's actions to the validity of his underlying
criminal conviction in the Superior Court. (See
generally ECF No. 5.) Subsequently Plaintiff filed
documents (ECF Nos. 6, 8) purporting to add new parties and
claims, and on June 19, 2017, Plaintiff filed a motion for
leave to amend his complaint. (ECF No. 7.)
Defendants
filed their first motion to dismiss on September 29, 2017.
(ECF No. 16.) Because Plaintiff's amendments and other
submissions had strayed so far from the claims set forth in
his original complaint, the court denied Defendants'
motion to dismiss without prejudice, as it appeared to be
moot. (ECF No. 21.) In addition, the court allowed Plaintiff
to file a second amended complaint encompassing all the
claims he intends to bring, all the defendants against whom
he makes his claims, and all the relief he demands. On
February 16, 2018, Plaintiff filed a document titled:
Motion to bring Clarity to Plaintiff Allegations Under &
or pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1651 & or 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Plaintiff claims fall under either 28 U.S.C. 1651 & or 42
U.S.C. § 1983 or Both Declaratory Relief & or
monetary gains for purpose of one or the other & or both
& or the improper handling & wrongdoing of U.S.P.C.
et al employees, illegal detention/unlawful detention,
invalid conviction & or sentence & or invalid
conviction & or sentence & or ineffective assistance
of Appeal Counsel under Williams
(ECF No. 27 at 1.) The court construes this document as
Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint (“2d Am.
Compl.”) against the following defendants:
Rebecca Vogel Olinda Moyd Jequan S. Jackson Joseph M.
Pacholski Kyndall Johnson
Charles T. Massarone J. Kelly District of Columbia Patricia
Smoot USPC
Patricia K. Cushwa Gary N. Kashurba CSOSA
(See 2d Am. Compl. at 5-6.) The individual
defendants are sued in both their official and individual
capacities. (See id. at 5.) Notwithstanding the
Second Amended Complaint's vague, rambling and
...