Rious v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, Civil Action No. 15-1795 (RC)

CourtUnited States District Courts. United States District Court (Columbia)
Writing for the CourtRUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge
Citation183 F.Supp.3d 170
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 15-1795 (RC)
Decision Date03 May 2016
Parties William James Rious, Petitioner, v. U.S. Parole Commission, Respondent.

183 F.Supp.3d 170

William James Rious, Petitioner,
v.
U.S. Parole Commission, Respondent.

Civil Action No. 15-1795 (RC)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed May 3, 2016


Williams James Rious, Hyattsville, MD, pro se.

Angela Nichole Buckner, U.S. Attorney's Office DOJ/USAO, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

183 F.Supp.3d 171

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, United States District Judge

In this action for a writ of habeas corpus , petitioner challenges on constitutional grounds the United States Parole Commission's jurisdiction over District of Columbia parole matters. He specifically cites D.C. Code §§ 24–131, 133 and 406.1 Petitioner purports to mount a facial challenge while also claiming that the enforcement of the statutes against him "infringed upon the Ex Post Facto clause[.]" Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus at 1, ECF No. 1; see id. at 3 ("The gravamen of [the petition], is that, the U.S. Parole Commission has added 16 months of ‘street time credit’ to [petitioner's] January 30th, 2011 expiration maximum release date, in which his new expiration date will increase in the year of 2027."). Petitioner seeks "to vacate his unlawful 16 years' additional parole sentence." Id. at 14. In supplemental pleadings, petitioner adds a claim arising from his placement in a federal halfway house as a condition of his parole supervision. See Mot. to Amend Add'l Facts and Request for a Writ of Mandamus, ECF No. 9; Mot. to Amend and Supplement New Facts to be Release[d] from a Federal Halfway House, ECF No. 10.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In response to the order to show cause why the writ of habeas corpus should not issue, the Commission has adequately explained why the petition and the supplemental pleadings provide no bases for relief. See U.S. Parole Comm'n's Opp'n to Pet'r's Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 2, 10-17, ECF No. 11. On March 1, 2016, petitioner was ordered to reply to the Commission's opposition by April 11, 2016. He was informed, among other things, that "[t]he allegations of ... an answer to an order to show cause in a habeas corpus proceeding, if not traversed, shall be accepted as true except to the extent that the judge finds from the evidence that they are not true." Mar. 1, 2016 Order at 2 (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2248 ), ECF No. 12. Petitioner has not filed a reply, and the time for doing so has expired. The Court accepts the Commission's documented allegations as true, and it agrees that no grounds exist for issuing the writ. Thus, for the reasons highlighted below, the petition will be denied.

II. DISCUSSION

District of Columbia prisoners are entitled to habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 upon showing that their "custody is in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). The petition is difficult to follow, but petitioner advances arguments under the Constitution's ex post facto , double jeopardy and due process clauses. In addition, the facial challenge appears to be based on the separation of powers doctrine.

1. Reinstatement of Street-Time Credit

With regard to the specific relief petitioner seeks, the Commission's documentation establishes that he is not entitled to reinstatement of the sixteen years of time he spent on parole ("street-time credit"). This is because while on parole, petitioner was convicted in D.C. Superior Court of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance (heroin); therefore, the Commission was required by D.C. Code § 24–406 to rescind the street-time credit upon revoking petitioner's parole.2

183 F.Supp.3d 172

See 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 parole revocations [prior to 2009], the number of days he spent on parole was properly rescinded and, thus, no longer counted towards the service of his prison term") (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Bell v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Action No. 18-2928 (TJK)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 8 Julio 2019
    ...violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see Rious v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 183 F. Supp. 3d 170, 171 (D.D.C. 2016). But the usual remedy for a delayed revocation hearing is "an action to compel a hearing," not release. Hil......
  • Martin v. Fikes, Case No. 20-cv-2280 (SRN/ECW)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 27 Mayo 2021
    ...prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in being released to parole.'" Rious v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 183 F. Supp. 3d 170, 173 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Johnson v. District of Columbia, 67 F. Supp. 3d 157, 164 (D.D.C. 2014), aff'd, 927 F.3d 539 (D.C. Cir. 2019));......
  • S.M.A. v. Birkholz, Case No. 19-cv-689 (DWF/ECW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 14 Enero 2020
    ...prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in being released to parole.'" Rious v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 183 F. Supp. 3d 170, 173 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Johnson v. District of Columbia, 67 F. Supp. 3d 157, 164 (D.D.C. 2014), aff'd, 927 F.3d 539 (D.C. Cir. 2019), ......
3 cases
  • Bell v. U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Action No. 18-2928 (TJK)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • 8 Julio 2019
    ...violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3); see Rious v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 183 F. Supp. 3d 170, 171 (D.D.C. 2016). But the usual remedy for a delayed revocation hearing is "an action to compel a hearing," not release. Hil......
  • Martin v. Fikes, Case No. 20-cv-2280 (SRN/ECW)
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 27 Mayo 2021
    ...prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in being released to parole.'" Rious v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 183 F. Supp. 3d 170, 173 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Johnson v. District of Columbia, 67 F. Supp. 3d 157, 164 (D.D.C. 2014), aff'd, 927 F.3d 539 (D.C. Cir. 2019));......
  • S.M.A. v. Birkholz, Case No. 19-cv-689 (DWF/ECW)
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 8th Circuit. United States District Court of Minnesota
    • 14 Enero 2020
    ...prisoners do not have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in being released to parole.'" Rious v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 183 F. Supp. 3d 170, 173 (D.D.C. 2016) (quoting Johnson v. District of Columbia, 67 F. Supp. 3d 157, 164 (D.D.C. 2014), aff'd, 927 F.3d 539 (D.C. Cir. 2019), ......

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