PARKS v. US PAROLE COMMISSION
Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment - The action will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the pleadings and the expanded record show that Parks' petition for a writ of habeas corpus is moot. Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue. (See Entry.) Signed by Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson on 2/10/2016. Copy sent to Petitioner via US Mail. (GSO)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
TERRE HAUTE DIVISION
Entry Dismissing Action and Directing Entry of Final Judgment
This is an action in which Larry Parks, a state prisoner, seeks a writ of habeas corpus. The
respondent is Loretta Lynch, the Attorney General of the United States. Attorney General Lynch
was named as respondent because Parks is not in federal custody at present but seeks relief
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3) with respect a claim by federal authorities.
The respondent has filed an answer to Parks’ habeas petition and Parks has replied.
Whereupon the Court, having considered the pleadings and the expanded record, and
being duly advised, finds that Parks’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus must be denied. This
conclusion rests on the following facts and circumstances:
Parks was released from federal confinement on August 20, 2015 and placed in the
custody of Indiana authorities. At the time of this change, a Certificate of Release was issued by
the Federal Bureau of Prisons indicating that Parks is subject to a term of special parole, and under
the jurisdiction of the United States Parole Commission, commencing August 21, 2015 and
continuing until August 8, 2016.
Parks’ habeas petition challenges the terms of the Certificate of Release just
On November 3, 2015, a Corrected Certificate of Mandatory Release was issued
and specified that Parks was on regular parole rather than special parole. The duration remains
unchanged, and this Corrected Certificate was dated nunc pro tunc to August 21, 2015.
The Corrected Certificate just described imposes a period of mandatory release and
does not impose or refer to a period of special parole. The Corrected Certificate just described
completely replaced the Certificate of Release described in paragraph 1 above. The effect of the
Corrected Certificate just described is to make plain that Parks was not re-released in August 2015
to a term of special parole.
The appropriateness of the Parole Commission having taken the action described
herein, meaning, in having issued the Corrected Certificate of Mandatory Release, is shown by
the recent decision in Edwards v. Cross, 801 F.3d 869, 879 (7th Cir. 2015).
“When, during the course of litigation, the issues presented in a case ‘lose their life
because of the passage of time or a change in circumstances . . . and a federal court can no longer
grant effective relief,’ the case is considered moot.” Ali v. Cangemi, 419 F.3d 722, 723–24 (8th
Cir. 2005)(quoting Beck v. Mo. State High Sch. Activities Ass'n, 18 F.3d 604, 496 n.7 (1969)). As
explained above, that is what has occurred with respect to the mistaken certificate of special parole
and the later issuance of the corrected certificate of mandatory release. The fact that this occurred
through the administrative channels of the United States Parole Commission after this action had
been filed is of no consequence. Macktal v. Chao, 286 F.3d 822, 825 (5th Cir. 2002)(“[I]t is
generally accepted that in the absence of a specific statutory limitation, an administrative agency
has the inherent authority to reconsider its decisions.”) (collecting cases).
An action which is moot must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Board of Educ.
of Downers Grove Grade School Dist. No. 58 v. Steven L., 89 F.3d 464, 467 (7th Cir. 1996), cert.
denied, 117 S. Ct. 1556 (1997). Parks acknowledges that the error has been corrected. He states
that he will be released from state custody on May 31, 2016. He would like to avoid the anticipated
remaining term of parole while on mandatory release, but he supplies no factual or legal basis on
which the Court could indulge that desire as part of this adjudication. He likewise would like the
Parole Commission to be admonished to not violate any of his rights. Understandable though that
desire may be, the request for that to be part of the adjudication is denied.
Accordingly, the action will be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the
pleadings and the expanded record show that Parks’ petition for a writ of habeas corpus is moot.
Judgment consistent with this Entry shall now issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: February 10, 2016
Hon. Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
United States District Court
Southern District of Indiana
PUTNAMVILLE CORRECTIONAL FACILITY
1946 West U.S. Hwy 40
Greencastle, IN 46135
Electronically Registered Counsel
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?