1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
AZIM RAY , ) ) P etitioner , ) ) v. ) Civ. Action No. 1 1
- 2 127 (ABJ) ) U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION et al., ) ) Respondent s . )

________________________________ )

MEMOR ANDUM OPINION Petitioner is an inmate at the District of Columbia Jail

. In an application for a writ of habeas corpus , petitioner challenges the authority of the United States Parole Commission (“Commission”) to issue a detainer against him for a parole violation as an impermissible delegation of authority and , thus, a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. See Pet. at 5.

“ A court

. . . entertaining an application for a writ of habeas corpus shall forthwi th award the writ or issue [a show cause ] order

. . . , unless it appears from the application that the applicant or person detained is not entitled thereto. ” 28 U.S.C. § 2243. Since the Commission lawfully maintains jurisdiction over District of Columbia parolees or supervisees until the expir ation of their sentences, the separation of powers doctrine is inapplicable. T hus, the court, finding no grounds to issue the writ, will deny the petition and dismiss the case. BACKGROUND Petitioner is challenging his custody based on a sentence impose d by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia in October 2007 of twelve months’ incarceration and five years’ supervised release. See Pet. at 2, 6. The relevant facts are as follows. Petitioner states that o n April 28, 2009, he was released presum ably to serve the supervised release portion of the2 sentence , but was rearrested on May 21, 2009, “for PWID [possession with intent to distribute] heroin and no permit[.]” Id . at 6. P etitioner was released “on his own personal recognizance, pending a hea ring on July 22 nd 2009

. ” Id

. Meanwhile, the Commission issued a warrant on June 15, 2009, presumably based on petitioner ’s violation of the terms of his supervised release. Id

. According to petitioner, “[t]here was no probable cause hearing . . . conduc ted in a judicial court and [he] was not taken before a prison [sic] probable cause.” Id . “Petitioner was then rearrested in Virginia for PWID heroin and resisting arrest on January 24, 2010, whereas he was held without [] bond because of the U.S. Marsha l’s detainer.” Id . at 7. Petitioner states that he pled guilty to the Virginia charges and “was writted [sic] back to the District of Columbia to face pending charge [sic] and parole violation.” Id

. On February 10, 2011, the Superior Court sentenced pet itioner to a pr ison term of six months for a “probation” violation and set trial dates for another case. Id . Before the trial, however, petitioner “was removed to Rivers Correctional Institution on May 6, 2011, to serve [the six

- month sentence]. ” Id . On A ugust 3, 2011, “before the petitioner was to be release[d], a detainer [had been] lodged against him on May 19, 2011 , by the U.S. Marshal Services [sic] in the Eastern District of North Carolina for a parole violation.” Id

. Petitioner filed the instan t habeas petition on November 28, 2011

. I n Ground One , he claims that “his post

- supervision term was impermissibly delegated to the U.S. Parole Commission[;] [thus,] the execution of a U.S. Marshal Services’ warrant and the lodging of a parole detainer” wa s in violation of the Constitution. Id . at 5. In Ground Two, petitioner challenges the Commission ’s “judicial power to conduct any probable cause or revocation hearing against him at the D.C. Jail .

. . as to revoke his liberty interest, because it is th e sole duty for a magistrate judge to conduct a probable cause hearing in the Superior Court . . . .” Id . In3 Ground Three, petitioner challenges D.C. Code §§ 24

- 131, 133, 406, a uthoriz ing the Commission ’s supervision over D.C. parolees and supervisees. Id

. DISCUSSION The extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus is available to District of Columbia prisoners if the prisoner shows that he is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petiti oner ’s invocation of the separation of powers doctrine mistakes the role of the paroling authority

. The Commission has had jurisdiction over parole matters of District of Columbia felons since August 1998. D.C. Code § 24

- 1231 (now § 24

- 131); see Franklin v. District of Columbia , 163 F.3d 625, 632 (D.C. Cir. 1998). It is empowered to grant, deny, or revoke a District of Columbia offender's parole and to impose or modify his parole conditions. D.C. Code § 24

- 131(a). T he Commission does not usurp a judicial function when, as here, it acts “pursuant to the parole laws and regulations of the District of Columbia , ” D.C. Code § 24

- 131(c) , because “parole revocation is not the continuation of a criminal trial but a separate administrative proceeding,” Maddox v. E lzie, 238 F.3d 437, 445 (D.C. Cir. 2001) , pertaining to the execution of an imposed sentence. See United States v. Wilson , 503 U.S. 329, 335 (1992) (“After a district court sentences a federal offender, the Attorney General, through the BOP, has the respo nsibility for administering the sentence,” which includes “as an administrative matter” calculating jail

time credit); Smallwood v. U.S. Parole Com'n , 777 F. Supp. 2d 148, 150 ( D.D.C. 20 11 ) (“The [Commission] exercises no judicial function, and its decisio ns do not violate the sep a ration of powers doctrine.”) (citing cases); see also Hardy v. United States , 578 A.2d 178, 181 (D.C. 1990) ("jeopardy does not attach in probation or parole revocation proceedings because they are4 not new criminal prosecutions bu t rather continuations of the original prosecutions which resulted in probation or parol e.") (citing Fifth, Sixth and Eighth circuit cases)

. Since the Commission was well within its authority to issue a detainer against petitioner for violating the terms of his supervised release , no basis exists for issuing the writ. Accordingly, the application for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. A separate final order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.

. __________s/___________ AMY BERMAN JACKSON United States District Judge DATE: January 26 , 201 2