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.

Wilson v. Miner

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division

May 30, 2014

ALFONSO LUMORRIS WILSON, Petitioner,
v.
JONATHAN MINER, Respondents.

ORDER

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.

The matter is before the court on the motion for summary judgment (DE 17) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 of respondent Warden Jonathan C. Miner ("respondent"). The issues raised were fully briefed and are ripe for adjudication. For the following reasons, the court grants respondent's motion.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

On February 25, 1985, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, petitioner was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of "15 years; 18 months (parole violator term)" for the unlawful distribution of a controlled substance, possession of heroin, and failure to appear. (Resp't's Mem. Ex. J, p. 3.) On November 15, 1990, petitioner was released to parole supervision, and was to remain on parole supervision until January 12, 2002. (Id. Ex. B.)

From June 1996 through March 7, 2009, the United States Parole Commission[1] ("the Commission") revoked petitioner's parole on several occasions. (Id. Exs. C-H.) On August 24, 2009, petitioner was released on parole with an expiration date of July 27, 2013. (Id. Ex. I.)

On May 2, 2011, the Commission issued a warrant based upon information from petitioner's supervision officer that petitioner committed the following violations: (1) failure to submit to drug testing; (2) law violation involving possession of heroin and possession of drug paraphernalia; (3) violation of a special condition (drug aftercare); (4) failure to comply with graduated sanction (behavioral modification groups); (5) failure to report to supervising officer as directed; and (6) failure to report change in residence. (Id. Ex. J.) Petitioner subsequently was arrested. (Id. Ex. K.) On November 28, 2011, the Commission informed petitioner that it found probable cause to believe that he had violated the conditions of parole and that it would schedule a parole revocation hearing. (Id. Ex. K.)

On February 29, 2012, the Commission conducted a parole revocation hearing for petitioner. (Id. Ex. L.) On April 5, 2012, the Commission revoked petitioner's parole and denied him credit for the time he spent on parole. (Id.) The Commission issued petitioner a re-parole date of September 29, 2012. (Id.) On September 28, 2012, petitioner was released on parole with five hundred fifty-five (555) days of parole supervision remaining. (Id. Ex. M.)

On June 8, 2012, petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, challenging the search warrant that resulted in his arrest and being charged with a parole violation. In particular, petitioner alleged that he was being unlawfully detained because the parole violation warrant issued by the Commission was not based upon probable cause.

Respondent subsequently filed a motion to dismiss arguing that petitioner's action was moot because he was released from his parole sentence. The court, thereafter, denied respondent's motion due to the fact that petitioner alleged sufficient collateral consequences.

On November 14, 2013, respondent filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that petitioner's § 2241 petition is meritless. The motion was fully briefed.

DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

Summary judgment is appropriate when there exists no genuine issue of material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby , 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986). The party seeking summary judgment bears the burden of initially coming forward and demonstrating an absence of a genuine issue of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). Once the moving party has met its burden, the nonmoving party must then affirmatively demonstrate that there exists a genuine issue of material fact requiring trial. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587 ...


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.