Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Alston v. United States Attorney General

United States District Court, D. Maryland

August 6, 2018

RICKY ALSTON. Petitioner
v.
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents

          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          JAMES K. BREDAR CHIEF JUDGE

         Petitioner 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 this action.

         BACKGROUND

         This 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.

         The claims presented in Alston I are summarized as follows:

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 respond. Id.
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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.