Stuckey v. Parole Commission et al
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Chief Judge Deborah K. Chasanow on 9/22/2014. (kns, Deputy Clerk)(c/m 9/22/14)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
ANTOINE STUCKEY, #405-649
Petitioner
*
v.
*
PAROLE COMMISSION, et al.,
Respondents
CIVIL ACTION NO. DKC-14-2026
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Petitioner Antoine Stuckey, a state prisoner confined at the Maryland Reception,
Diagnostic & Classification Center (“MRDCD”), filed a habeas corpus challenge on June 23,
2014, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, alleging a due process violation based on his continued
confinement while awaiting a parole revocation hearing. (ECF No. 1). Respondents have filed
an Answer in which they argue that the Petition should be dismissed because Petitioner has
failed to exhaust his due process claims in state court. (ECF No. 4 p. 1). Respondents also
provide information showing that Petitioner received a parole revocation hearing on July 31,
2014. Respondents’ Answer is not opposed.
Analysis
“A habeas corpus petition is moot when it no longer presents a case or controversy under
Article III, § 2, of the Constitution.” Aragon v. Shanks, 144 F.3d 690, 691 (10th Cir. 1998)
(citing Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998)). “This case-or-controversy requirement subsists
through all stages of federal judicial proceedings, trial and appellate.” Lewis v. Continental Bank
Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477 (1990). The parties must continue to have a “personal stake in the
outcome” of the litigation. Id. at 478 (quoting Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983)).
“This means that, throughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened
with, an actual injury traceable to the defendant and likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial
decision.’” Spencer, 523 U.S. at 7 (quoting Lewis, 494 U.S. at 477).
A claim that is moot may nonetheless be considered by the court if it is “capable of
repetition, yet evading review.” Fed. Election Comm’n v. Wis. Right to Life, Inc., 551 U.S. 449,
462 (2007). This exception is limited. See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F. 3d 281, 289 (1983). “In
the absence of a class action, the ‘capable of repetition, yet evading review’ doctrine [is] limited
to the situation where two elements combined: (1) the challenged action was in its duration too
short to be fully litigated prior to its cessation or expiration, and (2) there was a reasonable
expectation that the same complaining party would be subjected to the same action again.”
Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 149 (1975).
Examination of Maryland’s electronic case docketing system reveals that Petitioner is no
stranger to the Baltimore City Circuit Court. On June 30, 2009, Petitioner pleaded guilty to drug
possession with intent to distribute and was sentenced to five years of incarceration, all
suspended, with three years of supervised probation.1 On July 2, 2012, he pleaded guilty to
violating probation on that conviction, and was sentenced to two years of incarceration.2 He was
released on parole on July 31, 2013. (ECF No. 4-2).
On January 9, 2014, Petitioner was arrested for drug possession.3 A parole violation
warrant was issued. Petitioner pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana on July 10, 2014, and
was sentenced to time served. On July 31, 2014, a Maryland Parole Commissioner held a parole
1
See http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=109063013&loc=69&detailLoc=DSK8.
2
See id.
3
See http://casesearch.courts.state.md.us/inquiry/inquiryDetail.jis?caseId=814120002&loc=69&detailLoc=DSK8.
2
revocation hearing, revoked Petitioner’s parole, granted him some credit for “street time,” and
sentenced him to serve the remainder of his probation violation conviction.4
Petitioner sought federal habeas corpus relief based on the delay in adjudicating his
parole revocation charges. Parole revocation has occurred. There is no likelihood of repetition
with regard to this incident, and no further remedy remains to be fashioned by this court.
Accordingly, the Petition, which is moot, shall be dismissed by separate Order which follows.
September 22, 2014
Date
___________/s/____________________
DEBORAH K. CHASANOW
United States District Judge
4
Petitioner remains incarcerated on his probation violation conviction, and has not challenged the revocation in the
state courts.
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?