Morgan v. Futch

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_______________________________________ ) DUJUAN MORGAN, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 13-0816 (KBJ) ) MR. FUTCH, WARDEN, D.C. JAIL, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) ) ______________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER

Pending before the Court is Petitioner DuJuan Morgan’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus to compel Respondents—specifically, the United States Parole Commission (“Commission”) and Greg Futch, Warden of the D.C. Central Detention Facility (“CDF”)—to hold a parole revocation hearing. Petitioner initiated this action on May 29, 2013, after Petitioner had been held at CDF for over 90 days (since February 11, 2013) without a hearing. (Pet., ECF No. 1, at 2.) 1 By letter of July 19, 2013, nearly two months after the petition was filed, Petitioner informed the Court that the Commission did, in fact, hold a parole revocation hearing on July 18, 2013, and that during that hearing Petitioner’s parole was revoked. (Pet’r’s Ltr. of July 19, 2013 (“Pet’r’s Ltr.”), ECF No. 12 at 1.)

1 The petition, which is brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, argues that the Commission failed to hold a timely revocation hearing in violation of its own rules such that Petitioner’s immediate release is warranted. (Pet., ECF No. 1, at 2, 4.) Notably, the appropriate remedy for a delayed revocation hearing is a writ of mandamus to compel such a hearing, not a writ of habeas corpus to compel the petitioner’s release. Vactor v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 815 F. Supp. 2d 81, 84 (D.D.C. 2011).

“[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969); see also Spencer v. Kenma, 523 U.S. 1, 7 (1998) (“[T]hroughout the litigation, the plaintiff ‘must have suffered, or be threatened with, an actual injury . . . likely to be redressed by a favorable court decision.”). In his petition, Petitioner specifically requests that the Court order the Commission to hold a parole revocation hearing. (Pet. ¶ 33.) Because the relief that Petitioner seeks apparently has already been provided (see Pet’r’s Ltr. at 1), this action must be dismissed as moot. See Colts v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 531 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2008) (“[B]ecause the USPC already has conducted both [probable cause and revocation] hearings, petitioner is not entitled to . . . relief.”); Thomas v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, Civ. A. No. 92-590(CRR), 1992 WL 193695, at *3 (D.D.C. Aug. 4, 1992) (case moot where petitioner, who complained of delayed revocation hearing, had since received it).

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that this case is dismissed.

Date: July 29, 2013 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge