Moore v. United States Parole Commission ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                              UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
    Anthony DeWayne Moore,                        )
    )
    Petitioner,                    )
    )
    v.                                     )       Civil Action No. 10-1987 (EGS)
    )
    United States Parole Commission et al.,       )
    )
    Respondents.                  )
    MEMORANDUM OPINION
    This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the petition for a writ of habeas
    corpus brought by an inmate at the District of Columbia Jail. For the following reasons, the
    Court denies the petition.
    The extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus is available to District of Columbia prisoners
    upon a showing that the prisoner is “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties
    of the United States.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
    (c)(3). Petitioner claims that he is “being illegally
    incarcerated, pursuant to the issuance of a ‘parole violator warrant’ issued by a Bureau of the
    Executive branch of government, not a ‘Judicial Warrant’ issued by a court of competent
    jurisdiction.” Pet. at 1. He challenges the local statute governing supervised release, 
    D.C. Code § 24-403.01
    , on the ground that its execution violates the separation of powers doctrine. 
    Id.
    As the paroling authority for District of Columbia prisoners, the United States Parole
    Commission is authorized by § 24-403.01(6) to grant, deny or revoke a District of Columbia
    offender's parole supervision and to impose or modify his parole conditions. See 
    D.C. Code § 24-131
    (a); Thompson v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Corrections, 
    511 F. Supp.2d 111
    , 114
    (D.D.C. 2007). Because the foregoing statutes govern the execution of a judicially imposed
    2
    sentence, “[t]he Parole Commission does not exercise a judicial function and its decisions do not
    violate the separation of powers.” Montgomery v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, Civ. Action No. 06-2133
    (CKK), 
    2007 WL 1232190
    , at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 2007) (citing cases); accord Leach v. U.S.
    Parole Comm’n, 
    522 F. Supp. 2d 250
    , 251 (D.D.C. 2007); Hammett v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, Civ.
    Action No. 10-0442 (JDB), 
    2010 WL 1257669
    , at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 2, 2010) (observing that
    “[t]his argument, and similar separation of powers arguments, have been raised often and
    rejected each time.”). Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. A separate
    Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
    SIGNED:   EMMET G. SULLIVAN
    UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
    Date: February 10, 2011
    

Document Info

Docket Number: Civil Action No. 2010-1987

Judges: Judge Emmet G. Sullivan

Filed Date: 2/10/2011

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014