Filing 10

ORDER denying as moot Petitioner MACARTHUR VENABLE's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. See the attached Order for additional details. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 10/12/2017. (lcapm1)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________________________________ ) MACARTHUR VENABLE, Case No. 17-cv-1608 (APM) ORDER Petitioner MacArthur Venable seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Respondent U.S. Parole Commission has not provided him with a timely supervised release revocation hearing. See Pet., ECF No. 1. He seeks immediate release from custody. Id. at 8. For the reasons that follow, the court denies his petition as moot. Petitioner’s claim is moot because he already received the only relief available to him. Absent delay that is so prejudicial that it constitutes a violation of due process, the sole remedy available to a petitioner for an untimely revocation hearing is to compel the respondent to hold such a hearing. See Howard v. Caufield, 765 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Sutherland v. McCall, 709 F.2d 730, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Here, Respondent granted Petitioner a probable cause hearing and a final revocation hearing, see Resp’t’s Opp’n, ECF No. 9, at 1–2, and Petitioner has not shown that the alleged delay in receiving such hearings prejudiced him in any way. Furthermore, Petitioner was released on September 8, 2017, see id at 2, and he presents no argument that there exists a continuing case or controversy, see Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 9, 14 (1998); Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631, 633 (1982); Speight v. Johnson, 969 F. Supp. 2d 10, 13 (D.D.C. 2013). Consequently, this case is moot. The court dismisses this case as moot. This is a final, appealable Order. Dated: October 12, 2017 Amit P. Mehta United States District Judge 2

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?