Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

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.

Jones v. La Board of Probation and Parole

United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Monroe Division

October 11, 2018


         SECTION P



          Karen L. Hayes United States Magistrate Judge

         Petitioner James J. Jones, a prisoner in the custody of Louisiana's Department of Corrections proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed the instant Petition for writ of habeas corpus on August 2');">28');">8');">8');">8, 2');">201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">18');">8');">8');">8, under 2');">28');">8');">8');">8 U.S.C. § 2');">22');">254. He challenges his release on parole and seeks, primarily, unconditional release from all terms and conditions of parole.[1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1" name="FN1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1" id= "FN1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1] For reasons that follow, it is recommended that Petitioner's Petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice as time-barred under 2');">28');">8');">8');">8 U.S.C. § 2');">22');">244(d)(1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1).


         Petitioner alleges that, on approximately March 2');">28');">8');">8');">8, 2');">201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">13, he pled guilty to simple burglary, [doc. #s 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, p. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1; 8');">8');">8');">8-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, 2');">2');">p. 2');">2]. On July 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, 2');">201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">13, a judge for the Fourth Judicial District Court, Parish of Morehouse, sentenced him to eight years imprisonment.[2');">2" name="FN2');">2" id= "FN2');">2">2');">2] Id.

         Petitioner was released from incarceration "as if released on parole" on March 2');">25, 2');">201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">14, pursuant to Louisiana Revised Statute § 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">15:571');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1.5(A).[3] [doc. # 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1-2');">2, p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3]. However, he alleges that, because the Louisiana Department of Public and Safety and Corrections ("DPSC") thought he was subject to a detainer, he was released to the custody of the Arkansas Department of Correction. Id. From what the Court can glean, he was previously charged in Arkansas with breaking and entering, [doc. # 8');">8');">8');">8, 2');">2');">p. 2');">2]. He was convicted of the Arkansas charge on April 6, 2');">201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">14, and he received a 3-year sentence. Id. at 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1-2');">2. The Arkansas Department of Correction released Petitioner on February 7, 2');">201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">17. Id. at 2');">2.

         On May 2');">20, 2');">201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">17, Petitioner was arrested in Arkansas on charges of "stalking and terrorist threat." Id. Petitioner pled guilty, and the Arkansas court sentenced him to six years of probation. Id.

         Petitioner obtained permission from the Arkansas court to travel to Morehouse Parish, Louisiana to visit an ill family member. Id. at 4. While in Morehouse Parish, he was "stopped and picked up [on a] detainer for [a] parole violation . . . ." Id. His parole was revoked on September 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">14, 2');">201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">17, and he is currently incarcerated in Louisiana, [doc. # 8');">8');">8');">8, p. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1]. He did not appeal his parole revocation or seek collateral review, but he did pursue "his only available administrative remedies . . . ." [doc. # 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, p. 5].

         In the instant Petition, Petitioner essentially claims that, instead of parole, he should have been released unconditionally. He first claims that he had an agreement with the DPSC that he would forego his incentive wages in exchange for a diminution of sentence in the form of good-time credit earned at a rate of 30 days of credit for every 30 days in custody, [doc. # 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1-2');">2, pp. 7- 8');">8');">8');">8]. The "contract," as Petitioner refers to it, made no mention of La. Rev. Stat. § 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">15:571');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1.5 and did not state that, upon earning good-time credit, he would be released "as if released on parole." Id. at 8');">8');">8');">8. He claims that he fulfilled his agreement and earned four years of good-time credit for the four years he was incarcerated. He also claims that, by foregoing incentive wages, he bought good-time credit. Id. at 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">10. Under his logic, he "diminished" or reduced his eight-year sentence to a four-year sentence, and he was therefore entitled to unconditional release on March 2');">25, 2');">201');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">14. Mat 8');">8');">8');">8, 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1.

         Relatedly, Petitioner claims that, on the day of his release, he was forced to choose between remaining in prison or signing a second "contract" and agreeing to release subject to parole conditions, [doc. #s 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1-2');">2, pp. 9-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">10; 8');">8');">8');">8-1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1, p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3]. He construes this as a form of duress, [doc. # 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1-2');">2, pp. 9, 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">12');">2]. He then reiterates that, after he served four years of imprisonment, he earned four years of good-time credit, which entitled him to an unconditional release. He adds that the Louisiana Board of Pardons and Parole ("the Board") cannot enforce this second "contract" because the Board did not sign it. Id. at 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">11');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1.

         Petitioner also challenges the constitutionality of La. Rev. Stat. § 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">15:571');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1.5, claiming that it violates due process, that its application results in double jeopardy, that it violates his right to equal protection, and that it violates the ex post facto clause. Id. at 3.

         Ultimately, Petitioner claims that he "is being illegal[ly] held" because the "Louisiana State Probation & Parole had no liberty right or [] authority to impose [] parole . . . ." [doc. # 8');">8');">8');">8, p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3');">p. 3]. He seeks monetary compensation, reimbursement for all parole fees, a stay of a Board proceeding, a declaration that La. Rev. Stat. § 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">15:571');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1.5 is unconstitutional, and release from incarceration without any form of parole supervision, [doc. # 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1-2');">2, p. 1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">13].

         Law and Analysis

         Title 2');">28');">8');">8');">8 U.S.C. § 2');">22');">244(d)(1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1');">1) provides a one-year statute of limitation for filing habeas corpus applications by persons in custody pursuant to the judgment of a state court. The limitation period in 2');">28');">8' ...

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.