Filed: Oct. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 12, 2017
Summary: ORDER AMIT P. MEHTA , District Judge . Petitioner MacArthur Venable seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Respondent U.S. Parole Commission has not provided him with a timely supervised release revocation hearing. See Pet., ECF No. 1. He seeks immediate release from custody. Id. at 8. For the reasons that follow, the court denies his petition as moot. Petitioner's claim is moot because he already received the only relief available to him. Absent delay that is so prejudicial
Summary: ORDER AMIT P. MEHTA , District Judge . Petitioner MacArthur Venable seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Respondent U.S. Parole Commission has not provided him with a timely supervised release revocation hearing. See Pet., ECF No. 1. He seeks immediate release from custody. Id. at 8. For the reasons that follow, the court denies his petition as moot. Petitioner's claim is moot because he already received the only relief available to him. Absent delay that is so prejudicial ..
More
ORDER
AMIT P. MEHTA, District Judge.
Petitioner MacArthur Venable seeks a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that Respondent U.S. Parole Commission has not provided him with a timely supervised release revocation hearing. See Pet., ECF No. 1. He seeks immediate release from custody. Id. at 8. For the reasons that follow, the court denies his petition as moot.
Petitioner's claim is moot because he already received the only relief available to him. Absent delay that is so prejudicial that it constitutes a violation of due process, the sole remedy available to a petitioner for an untimely revocation hearing is to compel the respondent to hold such a hearing. See Howard v. Caufield, 765 F.3d 1, 11 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Sutherland v. McCall, 709 F.2d 730, 732 (D.C. Cir. 1983). Here, Respondent granted Petitioner a probable cause hearing and a final revocation hearing, see Resp't's Opp'n, ECF No. 9, at 1-2, and Petitioner has not shown that the alleged delay in receiving such hearings prejudiced him in any way. Furthermore, Petitioner was released on September 8, 2017, see id at 2, and he presents no argument that there exists a continuing case or controversy, see Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 9, 14 (1998); Lane v. Williams, 455 U.S. 624, 631, 633 (1982); Speight v. Johnson, 969 F.Supp.2d 10, 13 (D.D.C. 2013). Consequently, this case is moot.
The court dismisses this case as moot. This is a final, appealable Order.
