MCNAIR v. USPC et al
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 4/16/18. (ms)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
WARDEN, D.C. JAIL, et al.,
Civil Action No. 17-1682 (TSC)
This matter is before the Court on petitioner Jimmie McNair’s petition for a writ of
habeas corpus (ECF No. 1) and the United States’ Motion to Dismiss the Petitioner’s Second Pro
Se Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 10.) For the reasons stated below, the Court
DENIES the petition and GRANTS the United States’ motion to dismiss.
On October 5, 2010, police arrested petitioner for the unlawful distribution of a
controlled substance (cocaine). (See United States’ Mot. to Dismiss the Pet’r’s Second Pro Se
Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 10 (“U.S. Mot.”), Ex. 1 at 1.) On December 6, 2011,
in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, petitioner was sentenced to a 48-month term of
imprisonment followed by a five-year term of supervised release. (Id., Ex. 1 at 3.) Petitioner
began his term of supervised release on May 12, 2014, and the term was to end on May 11, 2019.
(Id., Ex. 2 at 1; see id., Ex. 5 at 1.)
The United States Parole Commission (“Commission”) charged petitioner with seven
violations of the terms of his supervised release. 1 (See id., Ex. 3 (Warrant Application) at 1-2.)
It issued a warrant for petitioner’s arrest on August 5, 2015. (See id., Ex. 3 (Warrant).) The
warrant was executed on October 7, 2016, (id., Ex. 4,) days after Metropolitan Police
Department officers arrested petitioner for distribution of and possession of a controlled
substance, (id., Ex. 5.) The Commission charged petitioner with an additional violation to reflect
this arrest. (Id., Ex. 6.)
Petitioner’s probable cause hearing took place on October 14, 2016, (id., Ex. 7 at 1,) after
which a hearing examiner found probable cause to believe that petitioner committed seven of the
eight violations, (see id., Ex. 7 at 2-6.) Petitioner remained in custody pending a revocation
hearing, which took place on November 30, 2016. (Id., Ex. 7 at 8; see id., Ex. 8 at 1.) Although
petitioner had been represented by counsel at the probable cause hearing, (see id., Ex. 7 at 1,) he
waived counsel for the revocation hearing, (see id., Ex. 8 at 1, 4.)
The hearing examiner found that petitioner had committed seven of the eight violations
charged, (see id., Ex. 8 at 2-4,) and made no finding with respect to the law violation, (id., Ex. 8
at 4.) He recommended revocation of supervised release and a new 22-month term of
incarceration, followed by a 38-month term of supervised release. (See id., Ex. 8 at 5.) The
Commission concurred with the recommendation to revoke supervised release, and it ordered
petitioner to serve a 26-month term of incarceration without additional supervision. (Id., Ex. 9 at
1.) The National Appeals Board affirmed the Commission’s decision. (Id., Ex. 10 at 1.)
According to the Commission, petitioner used dangerous and habit forming drugs (Charge No.
2), failed to submit to drug testing (Charge No. 3), failed to comply with graduated sanctions
(global positioning systems, Charge No. 4), failed to report to his supervising officer (Charge
No. 5), and violated a special condition of his release (drug aftercare, Charges Nos. 1, 6 and 7).
(See U.S. Mot., Ex. 3 at 1-2.)
“A supervised releasee who is retaken and held in custody in the District of Columbia on
a warrant issued by the Commission, and who has not been convicted of a new crime, shall be
given a probable cause hearing by an examiner of the Commission no later than five days from
the date of such retaking.” 28 C.F.R. § 2.214(a). The Court construes the petition as one raising
a due process claim arising from the Commission’s failure to conduct a timely probable cause
hearing. The timeliness of the probable cause hearing is the same issue petitioner presented in a
prior habeas action in this Court. See McNair v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 253 F. Supp. 3d 280
(D.D.C. 2017), appeal dismissed, No. 17-5153, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24657, at *1 (D.C. Cir.
Dec. 6, 2017). Here, as in the prior action, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be
denied. Ordinarily, a petitioner could seek relief by requesting a writ of mandamus to compel
the Commission’s compliance with the applicable regulations. See Sutherland v. McCall, 709
F.2d 730, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1983). “Now that [p]etitioner has had both a probable cause hearing
and a revocation hearing, he is not entitled to mandamus relief.” McNair, 253 F. Supp. 3d at 282
(citing Colts v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 531 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2008)).
The petitioner has had a probable cause hearing and a supervision revocation hearing, and
his claim is now moot. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus, therefore, is denied. An Order
is issued separately.
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
DATE: April 16, 2018
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?