United States District Court, D. Maryland
RICKY ALSTON. Petitioner
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents
K. BREDAR CHIEF JUDGE
Ricky Alston, an inmate at the Federal Correctional
Institution at Cumberland (FCI Cumberland), filed this
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. §
2241. challenging the U.S. Parole Commission's (USPC)
revocation of his supervised release and imposition of a
49-month term of imprisonment. ECF No. 1. Respondents have
filed a Motion to Dismiss or. in the Alternative. Motion for
Summary Judgment. ECF No. 10, which is unopposed by Alston.
The matter is now ripe for review. After review of these
filings, the Court finds no need for an evidentiary hearing.
See Rules 1(b). 8(a), Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases in the United States District Courts and
Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons that follow, the Court
shall GRANT Respondents' dispositive Motion, and DISMISS
Petition was initially filed on November 4. 2016, in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania. ECF 1. While this case remained pending in
Pennsylvania, on May 15, 2017. Alston filed a Petition for
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in this
Court, raising the same challenge to the conduct of the USPC
in revoking his supervised release and imposing a 49-month
term of confinement. See Alston v. Stewart. Civil
Action No. JKB-17-1339 (hereinafter Alston I,
dismissed on February 27. 2018). On June 30. 2017. the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania transferred this case to this Court. ECF 6. The
case was received for docketing on August 3, 2017. ECF 8.
claims presented in Alston I are summarized as
1. After executing the arrest warrant on June 23, 2016, the
U.S. Marshal failed to return Petitioner "to the custody
of the Attorney General" for 18 days, and neither
"the warrant application or other notices were"
delivered to Petitioner. Id. at 8.
2. Petitioner's due process protections were violated
because he did not receive the September 7, 2016. revocation
hearing disclosure and 28 CFR § 2.55(a) requires notice
at least 60 days prior to hearing. Id. at 9.
3. "Pursuant to § 2.215(a) (c), (d)(1)(ii). (f)
[Petitioner] was not permitted an opportunity to sign or date
any paperwork related to this action, no paper was produced
by U.S.M.S." Petitioner also appears to take issue with
his placement in the Oneida County Sheriffs Department
immediately after arrest and his transfer to MDC Brooklyn on
"A-HOLD status with no other information."
Id. at 10.
4. Petitioner was not advised of his right to counsel to
challenge the placement of a warrant as a detainer while he
was serving his state sentence pursuant to 28 CFR § 2.46
- 2.48. and the September 7. 2016. letter does "not
contain the regional commissioner review that should have
taken place between the months of April/May 2016."
Id. at 10-11.
5. Petitioner "was unable to contest any action"
pursuant to the provisions of 28 CFR § 2.215 prior to
the hearing because he did not receive the requisite notice
from the USPC. Mat 11.
6. This ground is missing from the original Petition,
although Petitioner presents the ground in his Response in
Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. Petitioner argues that
the USPC failed to respond to his Freedom of Information Act
["FOIA"] request for "all relevant information
into this matter." ECF No. 17 at 8-9.
7. The revocation hearing was conducted outside the time
period provided by federal regulations, and "[n|o
postponement were [sicJ requested by [Petitioner] without
[sic] the aid of counsel nor were the commission given
consent to any postponement." ECF No. 1 at 12.
8. Petitioner submitted a notice of reconsideration to the
USPC under 28 CFR § 2.27. but the Commission failed to
9. The USPC erred in finding that Petitioner's severity
rating was Category 5 because it incorrectly found that his
menacing conviction was akin to an assault. Id. at
13-16. Petitioner's argument for this ground is taken
substantially verbatim from portions of ...