Munn-Bey v. United States Parole Commission
824 F. Supp. 2d 144
D.D.C.2011Background
- Munn Bey was sentenced in 1987 to 46 years for assault with intent to rape, first-degree burglary, and threats to injure.
- He was released on parole on October 9, 2008, with parole supervision for 27 more years through October 23, 2035.
- On September 4, 2009, the CSO reported parole violations (arrest for simple assault and felony threats, cocaine test positive, failure to report a drug test, and unsuccessful discharge from sex offender treatment).
- A parole violator warrant was issued on September 11, 2009 and a detainer mechanism was established to lodge the warrant and defer action until after new sentences were served, per agency instruction.
- On October 3, 2009, Munn Bey was arrested for distribution of cocaine; the detainer was lodged on October 5, 2009, while he was imprisoned for 28 months on the cocaine conviction.
- The Parole Commission has not yet held a revocation hearing related to the parole violation; Munn Bey filed a habeas petition on June 30, 2010 seeking prompt hearing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to provide revocation hearing | Munn Bey contends due process requires a prompt revocation hearing after arrest. | Due process is triggered only when the parole violator warrant is executed and the parolee is in custody, not merely when lodged as a detainer. | No right to a revocation hearing until execution of the warrant and custody under it. |
| Effect of detainer on due process | Detainer status and delay cause present liberty interests and ongoing deprivation. | Detainers and delayed hearings following execution are permissible under Morrissey and Moody. | Detainer procedure is constitutionally permissible; no automatic right to immediate hearing before execution. |
| Legal consequence for petition | Writ of habeas corpus should issue to quash the detainer and require a hearing. | Parole revocation process may be deferred until after completion of new sentences; no due process violation shown. | Petition denied; due process does not require a hearing until execution of the parole violator warrant. |
Key Cases Cited
- Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972) (parole revocation hearing must be provided and timely after custody)
- Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976) (due process applies to parole revocation; execution of warrant governs liberty loss)