Ferguson v. Wainwright, 849 F. Supp. 2d 1

Petitioner Ferguson, initially sentenced in 1991 for cocaine distribution, was last paroled in 2008 with an August 21, 2011 expiration date.
The U.S. Parole Commission issued a parole violator warrant on February 1, 2011, charging multiple violations and arrest occurring between 2008 and 2010.
The warrant was executed March 23, 2011; a probable cause hearing occurred April 1, 2011, followed by a parole revocation hearing on May 25, 2011.
The Commission revoked parole on July 12, 2011, rescinded street-time credit from May 1, 2010 to March 22, 2011, and ordered service of the remaining sentence.
Ferguson filed a habeas petition in June 2011, with a supplemental petition raising timeliness and disclosure challenges; the court denied relief but issued mandamus to reexamine street-time credit under the Equitable Street Time Credit Amendment Act of 2008.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Jurisdiction at revocation	Ferguson contends the expiration date should have precluded revocation.	Commission had authority while Ferguson remained under supervision.	No jurisdictional defect; Commission validly proceeded.
Timeliness of probable cause hearing	Delay to eight days violated the five-day rule; prejudiced Ferguson.	Delay was non-prejudicial; mandamus, not habeas, appropriate remedy for delay.	Delay moot; no habeas relief.
Timeliness of Notice of Action	Notice was untimely and prejudicial.	Delay did not prejudice due process; remedy not habeas relief.	No habeas relief; due process satisfied.
Sufficiency of evidence for revocation	Parole decision potentially irrational; credibility issues with officer.	Review limited to due process; decision supported by evidence.	No due process violation; revocation supported by evidence.
Street-time credit under Amended Act	Amended Act should apply to rescission of street-time credit.	Act retroactivity and applicability limited; record insufficient.	Court to compel reconsideration under Amended Act; mandamus warranted.

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parolees entitled to due process prior to revocation)
Ellis v. District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (due process requires notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard)
Alamo v. Clay, 137 F.3d 1366 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (sole power to grant parole lies with the Commission; habeas not to reweigh discretion)
Billiteri v. United States Bd. of Parole, 541 F.2d 938 (2d Cir. 1976) (courts do not review parole denial’s discretion or credibility of reports)
Crawford v. Jackson, 323 F.3d 123 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (evidentiary review of parole revocation; irrational or totally lacks evidentiary support)
Duckett v. Quick, 282 F.3d 844 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (parole revocation review with due process protections)
Sutherland v. McCall, 709 F.2d 730 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (writ of mandamus for compliance with statute; delay remedy limited to mandamus)
Hill v. Johnston, 750 F. Supp. 2d 103 (D.D.C. 2010) (delay in revocation hearing must be shown to be unreasonable and prejudicial)
Vactor v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 815 F. Supp. 2d 81 (D.D.C. 2011) (timeliness challenges in parole revocation contexts)