Watts v. Petrovsky, 84-1800
| Decision Date | 26 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 84-1800,84-1800 |
| Citation | 757 F.2d 964 |
| Parties | Elton WATTS, Appellant, v. Joseph S. PETROVSKY, Warden, Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Gregory K. Johnson, Springfield, Mo., for appellant.
Michael Jones, Asst. U.S. Atty., Springfield, Mo., for appellee.
Before LAY, Chief Judge, and JOHN R. GIBSON and FAGG, Circuit Judges.
Elton Watts appeals from the district court's order denying him leave to appeal in forma pauperis and dismissing without prejudice his petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2255 (1982). 1 Watts argues on appeal that the district court erred in ruling that the United States Parole Commission did not abuse its discretion in setting Watts' reparole date.
Elton Watts was originally sentenced to a six-year federal prison term in May of 1976. On April 23, 1979, Watts was released on parole, and was to remain on parole until May 16, 1984. On March 11, 1982, however, the United States Parole Commission issued a parole violator warrant for Watts on charges of stealing a scheduled narcotic, carrying a concealed weapon, and displaying a weapon. The warrant was supplemented on May 3, 1982 to reflect Watts' conviction in Missouri Municipal Court of carrying a concealed weapon. Watts was arrested the same day.
On July 29, 1982, Watts attended his parole revocation hearing before a panel of Parole Commission hearing examiners. During the hearing, the examiners and Watts discussed various factors, including the charges against Watts, his community resources, and his parole risk. The panel also considered a serious incident report from the Institutional Disciplinary Committee (IDC) finding Watts guilty of making written threats against prison employees.
The Parole Commission found Watts had violated the conditions of his parole. Using the guidelines set forth under 28 C.F.R. Secs. 2.20-.21 (1984), the Commission gave Watts a salient factor score of 4, placing him in the "fair" parole risk category. Assuming good institutional adjustment and program progress, the guidelines for determining the total time to be served before reparole suggested Watts spend 18-24 months in prison. See 28 C.F.R. Sec. 2.20(b). Concern over Watts' poor institutional adjustment, evidenced by the IDC report, led the Commission panel to recommend that Watts serve 60 days beyond the upper limit of the suggested guidelines. The Commission panel thus recommended Watts serve a total of 26 months before parole.
On September 12,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Opperisano v. Jones, 16–CV–3940 (MKB)
...(holding re-parole to have mooted appellant's challenges of the revocation of his parole and delay of his re-parole); Watts v. Petrovsky, 757 F.2d 964 (8th Cir.1985) (dismissing a challenge to parole revocation as moot when the petitioner was re-paroled after briefing of his case but prior ......
-
Spencer v. Kemna, 95-3629
...for lack of jurisdiction as moot when the movant was again paroled before the case was orally argued. Watts v. Petrovsky, 757 F.2d 964, 965-66 (8th Cir.1985) (per curiam). We considered as too speculative to overcome mootness the argument that the movant's parole could once again be revoked......
-
Arizona v. Ashton Co.
...and refuse to decide matters which would involve "entangling themselves in abstract disagreements . . ."); see also Watts v. Petrovsky, 757 F.2d 964 (8th Cir. 1985) (speculative claim was not ripe for review); West v. Secretary of the DOT, 206 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2000) (courts avoid adv......
-
Petty v. Ansel Card, 98-1336
...run concurrently as promised; magistrate judge failed to evaluate petition using less stringent standard); see also Watts v. Petrovsky, 757 F.2d 964, 966 (8th Cir. 1985) (issue not ripe for presentation where claim is "A pro se . . . petitioner is not required to identify specific legal the......