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.

Maye v. United States Parole Commission

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

August 13, 2014

ANTHONY MAYE, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.

ORDER

LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.

The matter is before the court on respondent's motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) (DE 10), which this court construes as a motion for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 because respondent attached documents to his motion which are outside of the scope of the pleadings. 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 September 20, 1985, the superior court for the District of Columbia sentenced petitioner to a twelve (12) year term of imprisonment for distribution of controlled substances. (Resp't's Mem. Ex. 1, p. 1.) Petitioner, most recently, was released on parole on October 30, 2008, with a sentence expiration date of September 3, 2011. ( Id. Ex. 2.)

On June 13, 2011, the United States Parole Commission[1] ("the Commission") issued a warrant for petitioner's arrest based on petitioner's prior arrest for destruction of property and burglary. ( Id. Ex. 3, p. 3.) On September 19, 2012, the Commission updated the information on the warrant to reflect that petitioner was convicted of the offenses and that the District of Columbia Superior Court sentenced petitioner to a term of thirty (30) months imprisonment along with a three year term of supervised release. ( Id. Ex. 4.) The Commission lodged its warrant as a detainer while petitioner serves his District of Columbia Superior Court sentence. ((DE 1), Attach. p.1.)

On June 19, 2013, petitioner filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241, alleging that his rights pursuant to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution have been violated because he has not received a review of the parole violation warrant currently pending as a detainer. As relief, petitioner requests that the parole violation warrant be disposed of through the Commission's expedited review process.

On January 10, 2014, respondent filed a motion to dismiss, which this court construed as a motion for summary judgment, arguing that petitioner failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. 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 then must 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 (1986). There is no issue for trial unless there is sufficient evidence favoring the non-moving party for a jury to return a verdict for that party. Anderson , 477 U.S. at 250.

B. Analysis

1. Revocation Hearing

Petitioner asserts that the Commission violated his due process rights because it failed to review the parole violation warrant currently pending as a detainer. In Morrissey v. Brewer , 408 U.S. 471 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that due process mandates that a parole revocation hearing take place within a reasonable time after a parolee is taken into custody. Id . 485-89. The Court, however, later held that the procedural protection of an immediate hearing is inapplicable where an inmate is in custody pursuant to a federal conviction, and has a detainer lodged against him for a later revocation hearing. Moody v. Daggett , 429 U.S. 78, 87-88 (1976). The Moody Court determined that a prompt hearing was unnecessary under these circumstances because: (1) the subsequent conviction establishes probable cause that a condition of release has been violated; and (2) the detainer does not immediately deprive the inmate of liberty. Id. at 86, n.7; Posey v. Dewalt , 86 F.Supp.2d 565, 569 (E.D. Va. 1999) (explaining that a parolee has no right to a preliminary hearing when the parole violator warrant simply is lodged as a detainer), appeal dismissed, 215 F.3d 1320 (4th Cir. 2000).

Here, petitioner is in custody pursuant to a federal conviction. Petitioner's parole violator warrant was lodged as a detainer, and the warrant has not yet been executed. Because petitioner is in custody pursuant to a federal conviction, the prompt parole ...


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.