Court Opinion

ID: 4234959
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-01-08 18:00:40.246692+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:43:12.838974
License: Public Domain

UNITEI) sTATEs DISTRICT CoURT
FoR THE DIS'TRICT oF CoLUMBlA

 

JAMES EARL KITTRELL
Petitioner,

v. Case No. 1:17-CV-]Ol-4 (TNM)

U.s. PARoLE CoMMIssIoN,

 

 

Respondent_

MEMORANDUMOPINION
At the time Jarnes E_ Kittrell (“Petitioner”) filed his Writ of Habeas Corpus Petition
' (“Pet.’r’), he Was detained at the Central Detention Facility on a parole violation Warrant issued by
the United States Parole Cornmission (“USPC”). See Pet. at l. According to Petitioner, he had
been in custody since December 12, 2016, yet neither a probable cause hearing nor a parole
revocation hearing had been held_ See id. Because the USPC failed to conduct a parole
revocation hearing within a reasonable time, see id., Peti`tioner- argued his detention Was
"‘wrongful, unlawful and illega],” id. at 2_ Thus, Petitioner demanded his immediate release
This Court issued an order to show cause on Mav 30, 2017,- and the USPC filed its
l response on June 27, 20]7. See generally U_S. Parole Comm’n’s Opp. to Pet. for Writ of Habeas
"Corpus (“USPC Opp__”). The Court issued an order on October ll`, 2017, affording Petitioner an
opportunity to`file a reply, [Dkt. #8], and on Petitioner’s motion, -[Dkt_ #9], later extended the
. deadline for his reply to Decernber ll, 2017. Min. Order-Nov. l, 2017. To date, Petitioner has
not filed a reply. 1
7 The USPC represented that a hearing examiner conducted Petitioner’s revocation hearing
on May 9, 2017j see USPC Opp_, EX. 13, and that the USPC “[r]evolId., Ex. 157 at

' l. Further, the USPC set Petitioner’s “[r]e-parole effective November 10, 2017 after the service

 

 

of 146 months” in custody ]d. According to the Federal Bureau ofPrisons’ Inmate Locator,
Petitioner Was released on November 9, 2017. Record for james Earl Kittrell, Register Number:
l 90599-083, Federal Bureau ofPri`sons’ Inmate Locator, hires:"..""it-‘:vv\-=.bo§).gov:"§.nn_z.ai:e.§.oc_.»" (select
the “F ind By Naine” tab', then search for James Earl Kittrell) (last visited Ianuary 6, 20]8).1
Now that the USPC has conducted the revocation hearing and Petitioner has been
released from custody, his petition is moot See Lcme v. Williams,-¢i$$ U.S. 624, 631 (1982)
(Where respondents only “attacl<[ed] their sentences, and since those sentences expired during the
course of these proceedings, this case is moot”)', Stoddard v. Unized Szates P_arole Comm 'n, 2011
U.s_ nat LEXIS 143605, *3 (D_D_c_ nea 14, 201`1) (Wheie the peraioner’$~“term ar
supervision has ended, and he has been released from custody . . . the Couzt deems the l
petition moot”). l
In the alternative, l also find that Petitioner could not have prevailed in any event.
Habeas relief in this circumstance is only available if petitioner has shown that the USPC’s delay
in conducting his revocation hearing Was both unreasonable and prejudicial Sutherland_v.
McCall, 709 F.Zd 730, 'i32 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Petitioner has not done so, and thus does not
demonstrate an entitlement to habeas relief. 'See Speight v. Johnston, 969 F. Su-pp. 2d lO, 13
(D.D_C. 2013). Furthermore, the ordinary remedy for a prisoner in Petitioner’s circumstance-
remaining in custody long past the deadline for his revocation hearing_vvouid be a writ of
mandamus compelling the USPC’s compliance With the relevant statute or regulation See

Sutherland, 709 F.2d at 732_ This Petitioner has already received his revocation hearing, and,

 

1 The Court can take judicial notice of “an adjudicative fact . . . that is not subject to reasonable
dispute because it; (l) is generally known Within the trial court’s territorial jurisdiction; or (2)
can be accurately and readily determined from sources Whose accuracy cannot reasonably be

j questioned.” Fed. R. Evid. 201(a)-_(b).

 

' ' therefore, he would not be entitled to mandamus relief See Colts v. United States Parole
C'oinm'n, 531'F. Supp. 2d 8, ll (D.D.C. 2008) (where “the USPC already has conducted both
[probable cause and revocation] hearings, petitioner is not entitled _to mandamus relief’). 7

l Accordingly, l hereby DENY the petition for a Writ of'habeas corpus, and DISMSS this

civil action An Order Will issue separately -

 

Dated: .lanuary 8, 2018 _ . TREVOR N. MCF_ADDEN
. - ' United States District Judge