STODDARD v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION
Filing
15
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Amy Berman Jackson on 12/14/11. (ms, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
___________________________________
)
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION,
)
)
Respondent.
)
___________________________________ )
KEITH O. STODDARD,
Civil Action No. 11-1050 (ABJ)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Keith O. Stoddard’s petition for a writ of habeas
corpus and the respondent’s motion to dismiss. For the reasons discussed below, the Court will
grant the respondent’s motion.
I. BACKGROUND
After having served a term of imprisonment imposed by the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia on August 7, 1990, the petitioner was released on mandatory parole on August 4,
2010. United States’ Motion to Dismiss Petitioner’s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus
(“Resp’t’s Opp’n”), Ex. 1 (Sentence Monitoring Computation Data) at 2. At that time, 270 days
of the sentence remained, and petitioner was to remain under parole supervision until May 1,
2011, the full-term date. See id., Ex. 1 at 2.
On March 24, 2011, in Alexandria, Virginia, the petitioner was arrested and charged with
driving under the influence of alcohol. Resp’t’s Opp’n, Ex. 2 (Warrant Application dated April
4, 2011) at 1. Based on this arrest, the United States Parole Commission (“Commission”) issued
1
a parole violator warrant on April 4, 2011, id., Ex. 2 (Warrant), with instructions that the warrant
be held in abeyance pending the outcome of criminal proceedings in Virginia, id., Ex. 2
(Memorandum to Community Supervision Officer from J.S. Jackson, Case Analyst, U.S. Parole
Commission, dated April 4, 2011). Further, the Commission instructed that the petitioner was to
remain under parole supervision “until the Full Term Date in a normal manner notwithstanding
issuance of this abeyance warrant.” Id., Ex. 2 (Memorandum) (emphasis removed).
Notwithstanding these instructions, the warrant was executed in error. See id. at 2.
“On April 22, 2011, the petitioner self-surrendered on a parole violator warrant issued by
[the Commission].” Pet. at 4. “On April 23, 2011, petitioner was transported to D.C. Jail and on
April 25, 2011, petitioner signed the Warrant Application.” Pet’r’s Am. to Writ of Habeas
Corpus at 2. Petitioner alleged violations of his right to due process because he had been held
for several weeks without having been afforded a timely probable cause or a revocation hearing.
See generally Pet. at 4.
Acknowledging that the “abeyance warrant . . . was executed contrary to Commission
instruction,” the Commission ordered the petitioner’s release on July 6, 2011. Id., Ex. 3 (Notice
of Action dated July 6, 2011). By that time, the petitioner’s full-term date had passed, and his
term of supervision had expired.
II. DISCUSSION
The petitioner demands that the Commission either conduct a hearing or effect his
immediate release. Pet. at 4. At this juncture, however, the petitioner already has received the
relief he demanded. His term of supervision has ended, and he has been released from custody.
Accordingly, the Court deems the petition moot. See Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631 (1982)
2
(finding that an attack on sentences which expired during course of habeas proceedings rendered
the case moot); Kimberlin v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, No. 03-5017, 2004 WL 885215 at *1 (D.C.
Cir. Apr. 22, 2004) (per curiam) (finding moot a habeas petition challenging Commission’s
decisions to revoke parole and to delay reparole because petitioner had been “released from the
confinement imposed as a result of those decisions”); Abdussamadi v. Harris, No. 02-5076, 2003
WL 880993, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 23, 2005) (per curiam) (“Now that appellant has been released
on parole, his claims are moot because they no longer present a case or controversy as required
by Article III.”); Thorndyke v. Washington, 224 F. Supp. 2d 72, 74 (D.D.C. 2002) (concluding
that petitioner’s claim of unlawful custody before his revocation hearing and findings of fact on
charge of parole violation found moot after issuance of corrected Notice of Action).
The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is moot, and the respondent’s motion to dismiss
will be granted. An Order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion will be issued separately
on this same date.
AMY BERMAN JACKSON
United States District Judge
DATE: December 14, 2011
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?