United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICHARD D. BENNETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Lumpkin is an inmate at the Federal Correctional Institution
in Cumberland, Maryland. Pending is his Petition for Writ of
Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2241. Lumpkin
alleges the United States Parole Commission
("Commission") violated his procedural due process
and equal protection rights under the Constitution by failing
to provide him with annual parole hearings in 2013 and 2014.
As redress, Lumpkin seeks to compel the Commission to grant
him "a conditional release." (ECF 1-1 at 3, 7-8).
filed a Response to which Lumpkin filed a Reply. (ECF 5, 6).
Subsequently, this Court granted Respondents leave to file a
supplemental exhibit to the Response. (ECF 8). Lumpkin filed
an Opposition. (ECF 10). The case is ready for disposition
and a hearing is unnecessary. See Local Rule 105.6
(D. Md. 2016). For reasons to follow, this Court will DENY
AND DISMISS the Petition with prejudice.
5, 1988, Lumpkin was sentenced to life imprisonment in the
District of Columbia Superior Court for conspiracy, assault
with intent to commit robbery, assault with intent to kill
while armed, carrying a pistol with without a license, and
assault with a dangerous weapon in connection with the
December 16, 1987, shooting of three undercover police
officers during a drug transaction. (ECF 5 at 2, ECF 5-2 at
Commission conducted Lumpkin's initial parole hearing on
October 31, 2012. (ECF 5-2). The Commission calculated
Lumpkin's Total Point Score or "grid score" of
1, a score that typically indicates parole is appropriate
under its guidelines. (ECF 5 at 2; ECF 5-2 at 14).
Lumpkin's salient factor score was 9 points, which
translated into a base score of zero points (low risk
category). The calculation reflected one point for "type
of risk" because Lumpkin's offense involved violence
and use of a weapon. One point was added for "negative
institutional behavior" based on Lumpkin's two
institutional infractions: Assault (Class I) and Possession
of a Dangerous Weapon (Class I). One point was deducted for
program achievement. In sum, Lumpkin's point score, or
"grid score" totaled one point. (ECF 5-2)
Commission issued a Notice of Action on December 3, 2012,
that departed from the Guidelines, denied parole
notwithstanding Lumpkin's Total Point Score, and
continued Lumpkin for parole reconsideration in 24 months.
The Commission's explained its reasons for the departure
in its Notice:
You have a total point score of 1 under the 1987 Board
guidelines for D.C. Code offenders. The guidelines indicate
that parole should be granted at this time. However, a
departure from the guidelines at this consideration is found
warranted because the Commission finds there is a reasonable
probability that you would not obey the law if released and
your release would endanger the public safety. You are a more
serious parole risk than shown by your point score because
your instant offense involved you shooting three undercover
officers during a drug transaction. The investigation
revealed that you were planning to rob your buyers of $8,
500, the purchase price of the drugs. After you shot two
undercover officers, you began to flee and shot at a vehicle
with two other individuals in the vehicle who were also
Your disregard for human life and your shooting of your
victims makes you a risk to the public if released at this
time. In addition, you committed rescission behavior which
included Assault on a Correctional Officer and Possession of
a Dangerous Weapon. Your release at this time would endanger
public safety. It is recommended that you complete programs
which identify victim impact issues for you to remain crime
free in the community.
The guidelines for the time to rehearing indicate that your
next hearing should be scheduled within 12 months. A
departure from these guidelines is found warranted for the
same reasons provided above for denying parole.
Commission based its decision was based on its authority to
deny parole notwithstanding a point score. This authority
The Board may, in unusual circumstances, waive the SFS
(Salient Factor Score) and the pre- and post-incarceration
factors set forth in this chapter to grant or deny parole to
a parole candidate. In that case, the Board shall specify in
writing those factors which it used to depart from the strict
application of the provisions of this chapter.
28 D.C.M.R. § 204.22. (emphasis added). Lumpkin's
counsel's requests to reopen the case and to meet with a