LINDSEY v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Robert L. Wilkins on 8/20/2013. (tcb)

SUMMARY MEMORANDUM AND OPINION;
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

LAWRENCE LINDSEY,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION et al., )
)
Respondents.
)

Civil Action No. 13-0550 (RLW)

MEMORANDUM OPINION1
On April 26, 2013, Lawrence Lindsey petitioned this Court for a writ of habeas corpus
while confined at the District of Columbia Jail on a parole violator warrant issued by the United
States Parole Commission on January 9, 2013. See Pet’r’s Request for Relief Under Habeas
Corpus [Dkt. # 1] at 1. In the petition, Mr. Lindsey claims that he has not received a probable
cause hearing and, thus, should be “released back into the community.” Id. at 1-2. In response
to the Court’s show cause order, the Commission contends that the petition should be summarily
denied because, among other reasons, petitioner was convicted in Alexandria, Virginia, of a
crime committed while on supervised release and, thus, is not entitled to a probable cause

1

This unpublished memorandum opinion is intended solely to inform the parties and any
reviewing court of the basis for the instant ruling, or alternatively, to assist in any potential future
analysis of the res judicata, law of the case, or preclusive effect of the ruling. The Court has
designated this opinion as “not intended for publication,” but this Court cannot prevent or
prohibit the publication of this opinion in the various and sundry electronic and legal databases
(as it is a public document), and this Court cannot prevent or prohibit the citation of this opinion
by counsel. Cf. Fed. R. App. P. 32.1. Nonetheless, as stated in the operational handbook adopted
by our Court of Appeals, “counsel are reminded that the Court's decision to issue an unpublished
disposition means that the Court sees no precedential value in that disposition.” D.C. Circuit
Handbook of Practice and Internal Procedures 43 (2011).
1

SUMMARY MEMORANDUM AND OPINION;
NOT INTENDED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTERS.

hearing. United States Parole Comm’s Opp’n to Pet’r’s Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. #
8] at 5.
On June 26, 2013, the Court advised petitioner about the potential consequence of
dismissal if he failed to reply to the United States’ opposition by July 29, 2013. Order [Dkt. # 9].
The Court informed petitioner that “[t]he allegations of . . . an answer to an order to show cause
in a habeas corpus proceeding, if not traversed, shall be accepted as true except to the extent that
the judge finds from the evidence that they are not true.” 28 U.S.C. § 2248. Petitioner has
neither replied to the Commission’s opposition nor sought additional time to do so, and the Court
accepts as true the Commission’s documented reasons for denying the writ. Hence, the petition
will be denied and this case will be dismissed. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum
Digitally signed by Judge Robert L.
Wilkins
DN: cn=Judge Robert L. Wilkins,
o=U.S. District Court, ou=Chambers of
Honorable Robert L. Wilkins,
email=[e-mail], c=US
Date: 2013.08.19 12:54:29 -04'00'

Opinion.

____________________
ROBERT L. WILKINS
United States District Judge
Date: August 20, 2013

2