Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01116/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01116-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIAM E. McDANIELS, 

Petitioner, No. CIV S-05-1116 MCE GGH P

vs.

U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, 

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Petitioner is proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Petitioner challenges the 2003 decision by the Parole Commission to forfeit

his street time on his original period of mandatory release. On April 20, 2006, the court granted 

the petition and ordered respondent to reinstate petitioner’s street time within thirty days.

On August 30, 2006, petitioner filed a motion to compel arguing that respondent

had not fully complied with the April 20, 2006, order. On September 12, 2006, the court ordered

respondent to file a response to petitioner’s motion to compel.

In the September 22, 2006, response to petitioner’s motion to compel, respondent

demonstrates that petitioner’s street time has been restored. In his October 5, 2006, response to

respondent’s opposition, petitioner appears to agree that the street time was restored. However,

petitioner argues that respondent failed to reinstate his “status” prior to the improper forfeiture of

Case 2:05-cv-01116-MCE -GGH Document 21 Filed 01/22/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

the street crime. Petitioner appears to argue that 3845 days of good time credits were revoked as

a result of the forfeiture of his street time. Plaintiff argues that with the reinstatement of this

street time, the revoked good time credits should be restored as well.

The court does not entirely understand petitioner’s argument. Nevertheless,

respondent is directed to file a response to petitioner’s claim that his revoked time credits should

have been restored as well, to the extent respondent understands petitioner’s claim. In requesting

this further briefing, the court expresses no opinion regarding the merits of this claim.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within fifteen days of the date of

this order, respondent shall file the further briefing described above. 

DATED: 1/22/07

/s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

mcdan1116.ord

Case 2:05-cv-01116-MCE -GGH Document 21 Filed 01/22/07 Page 2 of 2