United States ex rel. Felder v. United States Bd. of Parole

Decision Date17 December 1969
Docket NumberCiv. No. 13096.
Citation307 F. Supp. 159
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
PartiesUNITED STATES of America ex rel. Edward FELDER, Jr. v. UNITED STATES BOARD OF PAROLE.

Lloyd Cutsumpas, Cutsumpas, Collins & Hannafin, Danbury, Conn., for plaintiff.

Steward Jones, U. S. Atty., Leslie Byelas, Asst. U. S. Atty., New Haven, Conn., for defendant.

ZAMPANO, District Judge.

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The issue presented in this case is whether a "parole grantee," i. e., a federal prisoner whose date of parole has been set but who has not been actually released on parole, is entitled to notice and a hearing if the parole grant is rescinded after he has been transferred from prison to a Community Treatment Center.

The petitioner, Edward Felder, Jr., presently incarcerated in the Federal Correctional Institution in Danbury, Connecticut, was sentenced under the Youth Corrections Act on May 25, 1965. After being paroled in 1966 from the Federal Reformatory at Chillicothe, he was taken into custody in 1967 on a parole violator's warrant, and his parole thereafter was revoked by the Youth Correction Division of the Board of Parole. Felder then was incarcerated in the Danbury federal prison where, on December 10, 1968, the Division granted his a reparole, to become effective on March 10, 1969. In order to assist him in this second reentry into the community, Felder was transferred from the prison on January 22, 1969, to the Federal Community Treatment Center in New York City. It was anticipated that on the effective date of his parole he would be released from the Center for supervision by a parole officer in the community.

However, during his brief stay at the Center—January 22, 1969 to February 7, 1969—Felder's conduct was not satisfactory. On several occasions he was late reporting in and out of the Center, his employment record was poor, and on February 6th, he was AWOL for 24 hours. Finally on February 7th, he was placed in custody and removed to a federal detention facility in New York City. On February 23rd, the Youth Division, acting on a report submitted by the Director of the Center, reopened and rescinded Felder's parole. He is eligible for reparole in February, 1970.

Felder now seeks habeas release on the ground the Division's rescission was void because he was not given notice of the intended cancellation or accorded a hearing as required by the Youth Corrections Act, 18 U.S.C. § 5020. That section provides in relevant part that a youthful offender who is retaken into custody after his release on parole (and before his unconditional discharge) "shall be given an opportunity to appear before the Division or a member thereof." An adult parole violator has a similar right to a hearing before the Board of Parole. 18 U.S.C. § 4207; United States ex rel. Obler v. Kenton, 262 F.Supp. 205 (D. Conn.1967).

In Koptik v. Chappell, 116 U.S.App. D.C. 122, 321 F.2d 388, 392 (1963), the court held that the Board of Parole, without notice or hearing, had the power to "reopen and advance, postpone or deny a parole" which had been granted to an adult prisoner who had not yet been released from prison. The requirements of § 4207 were ruled inapplicable to the situation...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • O'Neal v. New Jersey State Parole Bd.
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • April 6, 1977
    ...1191, 1193 (5 Cir. 1972); Koptik v. Chappell, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 122, 321 F.2d 388, 392 (D.C.Cir.1963); United States ex rel. Felder v. U.S. Bd. of Parole, 307 F.Supp. 159 (D.Conn.1969); Temple v. Smith, 548 P.2d 1274 (Utah Sup.Ct.1976); State ex rel. Van Curen v. Ohio Adult Parole Auth., 45 ......
  • Downes v. Norton
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • June 29, 1973
    ...F. 2d 388 (1963). While that decision has been followed in this District, Bach v. Mitchell, supra; United States ex rel. Felder v. United States Board of Parole, 307 F.Supp. 159 (D.Conn.1969), those decisions preceded Morrissey v. Brewer, supra, and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778, 93 S.C......
  • Williams v. United States Board of Parole, Civ. No. B-921.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • October 21, 1974
    ...ZAMPANO, District Judge. This petition for a writ of habeas corpus raises the question whether United States ex rel. Felder v. United States Bd. of Parole, 307 F.Supp. 159 (D.Conn. 1969) remains good law. In Felder, this Court ruled that a "parole grantee", i. e., a federal prisoner whose d......
  • Nashua Corporation v. RCA Corporation
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Hampshire
    • December 19, 1969
    ... ... Civ. A. No. 2948 ... United States District Court D. New Hampshire ... ...

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