Herndon v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, Civil Action No. 13–0310 (KBJ).

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtKETANJI BROWN JACKSON
Citation961 F.Supp.2d 138
PartiesJohn HERNDON, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.
Decision Date16 August 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 13–0310 (KBJ).

961 F.Supp.2d 138

John HERNDON, Petitioner,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 13–0310 (KBJ).

United States District Court,
District of Columbia.

Aug. 16, 2013.


[961 F.Supp.2d 139]


John Herndon, Washington, DC, pro se.

Bernard J. Delia, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, for Respondent.


MEMORANDUM OPINION

KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, District Judge.

Before the Court is the United States Parole Commission's (“Commission's”) Opposition to Petitioner John Herndon's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus [Dkt. 11]. Petitioner filed his habeas petition [Dkt. 1] pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to challenge the Commission's rescission of the time he served while on parole (“street-time credit”) after repeated parole violations and revocations, which, in Petitioner's view, has resulted in the unlawful extension of his sentence. (Pet. at 5–6.) The Commission opposes issuing a writ on several grounds, and on April 23, 2013, the Court advised petitioner, who is proceeding pro se, about the duty to reply to the government's opposition and the consequences if he failed to reply. Particularly, petitioner was informed that the government's “allegations,” if not opposed, “shall be accepted as true,” unless the Court determined “from the evidence that they are not true.” (Order [Dkt. 10] at 2 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2248).) Petitioner has neither filed a reply nor sought additional time to do so, and the Court accepts the government's allegations as true. Upon consideration of the habeas petition and the government's uncontested opposition, the Court finds no basis for issuing the writ. Hence, the habeas petition will be DENIED and the case will be dismissed.

BACKGROUND

The respondent's submissions document the following undisputed facts. Petitioner is serving an aggregate prison sentence of 21 years that the Superior Court of the District of Columbia imposed on April 7, 1989, and December 22, 1993, for drug possession and distribution offenses. (Resp't's Opp'n at 2.) Petitioner's first release to parole supervision occurred on June 12, 1996, with a sentence expiration date of February 1, 2010. ( Id.) Petitioner violated this parole, and the then-District of Columbia Board of Parole (“D.C. Parole Board”) issued a parole violator warrant that was executed with Petitioner's arrest two years later, on May 10, 1999. ( Id.) Following a hearing in which Petitioner admitted the charge, the D.C. Parole Board revoked Petitioner's parole on August 14, 1999. ( Id.)

Meanwhile, Congress abolished the D.C. Parole Board, and the Commission assumed authority over parole determinations of District of Columbia felons. SeeD.C.Code § 24–131; Franklin v. District of Columbia, 163 F.3d 625, 632 (D.C.Cir.1998). Following a parole hearing on September 19, 2000, the Commission granted Petitioner parole and released him to parole supervision on June 13, 2001, with a new sentence expiration date of December 29, 2012. (Resp't's Opp'n at 2.)

In the ensuing years, an unfortunate sequence of release, violation, and revocation was repeated multiple times with respect to Petitioner's parole and incarceration status. ( See id. at 3–5.) For

[961 F.Supp.2d 140]

example, after being released to parole supervision in June of 2001, as explained above, Petitioner was arrested for drug distribution in Maryland (a violation of his parole conditions) and upon his conviction for that charge, the State of Maryland placed him on three years of probation. ( See id. at 3.) Petitioner absconded shortly thereafter, and both the State of Maryland and the Commission issued warrants for Petitioner's arrest. ( See id.) Significantly for present purposes, when Petitioner was finally caught and arrested in August of 2005, the Commission held a parole hearing and revoked Petitioner's parole on November 21, 2005. ( See id.) In revoking petitioner's parole at that time (in November 2005), and again in May 2007, and also in March 2009, the Commission rescinded petitioner's street-time credit and recalculated his sentence expiration date ( id.), thereby placing petitioner time-wise (for the purpose of determining the amount of incarceration left to be served) in the position that he would have been in but for his release to parole.1

After the revocation of March 2009, Petitioner was released to parole supervision twice more, and he was rearrested for drug violations while on release both times. On the first occasion, Petitioner was released to parole on April 19, 2010, with a new sentence expiration date of August 20, 2018. ( Id. at 4.) On September 24, 2010, the Commission issued a parole violator warrant, charging Petitioner with infractions such as failing to submit to drug testing...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 practice notes
  • United States v. Preston, Civil Action No. 13–265(RC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 16 August 2013
    ...arguments in opposition to transfer. First, it suggests that convenience is a minor factor in this case, as the federal courthouses in [961 F.Supp.2d 138]Alexandria, Virginia and Washington, D.C. are roughly ten miles from each other. Second, the government suggests that the interest of jus......
  • Rious v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, Civil Action No. 15-1795 (RC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 3 May 2016
    ...the street-time credit upon revoking petitioner's parole.2 183 F.Supp.3d 172See Resp't Opp'n at 8-9; Herndon v. U.S. Parole Comm'n , 961 F.Supp.2d 138, 142 (D.D.C.2013) (finding "in accordance with the holdings of numerous prior cases in this district ... that upon each of petitioner's paro......
  • Smith v. Fusimo, Civil Action 1:22-cv-00089 (UNA)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 25 January 2022
    ...Columbia prisoner challenging the manner of execution of a sentence, rather than the sentence itself.'” Herndon v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 961 F.Supp.2d 138, 141 (D.D.C. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Perkins v. Henderson, 881 F.Supp.2d 55, 60 (D.D.C. 1995)). Moreover, a petitioner's “......
  • Jones v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, Civil Action No. 16-0041 (BAH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 5 August 2016
    ...from the execution of a sentence, such as here, are properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Herndon v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 961 F. Supp. 2d 138, 141 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Perkins v. Henderson, 881 F. Supp. 55, 60 (D.D.C. 1995)). District of Columbia prisoners are entitled to habeas rel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 cases
  • United States v. Preston, Civil Action No. 13–265(RC).
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 16 August 2013
    ...arguments in opposition to transfer. First, it suggests that convenience is a minor factor in this case, as the federal courthouses in [961 F.Supp.2d 138]Alexandria, Virginia and Washington, D.C. are roughly ten miles from each other. Second, the government suggests that the interest of jus......
  • Rious v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, Civil Action No. 15-1795 (RC)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 3 May 2016
    ...the street-time credit upon revoking petitioner's parole.2 183 F.Supp.3d 172See Resp't Opp'n at 8-9; Herndon v. U.S. Parole Comm'n , 961 F.Supp.2d 138, 142 (D.D.C.2013) (finding "in accordance with the holdings of numerous prior cases in this district ... that upon each of petitioner's paro......
  • Smith v. Fusimo, Civil Action 1:22-cv-00089 (UNA)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 25 January 2022
    ...Columbia prisoner challenging the manner of execution of a sentence, rather than the sentence itself.'” Herndon v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 961 F.Supp.2d 138, 141 (D.D.C. 2013) (alteration in original) (quoting Perkins v. Henderson, 881 F.Supp.2d 55, 60 (D.D.C. 1995)). Moreover, a petitioner's “......
  • Jones v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, Civil Action No. 16-0041 (BAH)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
    • 5 August 2016
    ...from the execution of a sentence, such as here, are properly brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Herndon v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 961 F. Supp. 2d 138, 141 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Perkins v. Henderson, 881 F. Supp. 55, 60 (D.D.C. 1995)). District of Columbia prisoners are entitled to habeas rel......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT