United States District Court, W.D. Louisiana, Alexandria Division
LAMONT L. WARREN, Petitioner
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
H.L. PEREZ-MONTES UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
the Court is a petition for writ of habeas corpus (28 U.S.C.
§ 2241) filed by pro se Plaintiff Lamont L. Warren
(“Warren”) (#11245-007). Warren is an inmate in
the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons
(“BOP”), incarcerated at the United States
Penitentiary in Pollock, Louisiana. Warren was convicted in
the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Warren
challenges the denial of parole by the United States Parole
Warren cannot show that his custody is in violation of the
Constitution or laws of the United States, his petition
should be denied and dismissed.
was convicted in the D.C. Superior Court of “an array
of crimes, including assault with intent to kill while armed,
possession of a firearm during a crime of violence, carrying
a pistol without a license, and voluntary manslaughter while
armed.” (3:11-cv-01479, M.D. Penn., Doc. 12, p. 1).
Warren states that he was sentenced to a term of imprisonment
of 20 years to life. (Doc. 1, p. 2). Warren was denied parole
in July 2015 and May 2018. (Doc. 1, p. 4).
Law and Analysis
2241 vests the federal district courts with jurisdiction to
grant a writ of habeas corpus to persons in custody in
violation of the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the
United States. 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
United States Parole Commission (“USPC”) has
exclusive jurisdiction over parole decisions for all D.C.
felony offenders, including the exclusive authority to amend
or supplement regulations interpreting or implementing the
parole laws applicable to these offenders. See Hunter v.
U.S. Parole Comm'n, 406 Fed.Appx. 879, 880 (5th Cir.
2010) (citing National Capital Revitalization and
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, Pub.L. No. 105-33,
§ 11231(a)(1), 111 Stat. 712, 745 (1997)). Pursuant to
this authority, the USPC amended D.C.'s parole guidelines
in 1998 and 2000. See id. (citing Fletcher v.
Reilly, 433 F.3d 867, 870 (D.C. Cir. 2006)).
“there is no constitutional or inherent right of a
convicted person to be conditionally released before the
expiration of a valid sentence.” Greenholtz v.
Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Correctional Complex,
442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). Similarly, the parole laws and
regulations developed by the District of Columbia do not give
rise to a constitutionally protected interest in parole.
Ellis v. District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413, 1420
(D.C. Cir. 1996).
has given the USPC absolute discretion concerning matters of
parole. See Maddox v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 821
F.2d 997, 999 (5th Cir. 1987). According to D.C. Code
24-404(a), when a prisoner meets certain criteria, “the
Commission may authorize his release on
parole.” Id. (emphasis added). Administrative
guidelines for parole decisions operate only to provide a
framework for the Commission's exercise of its authority.
See Portley v. Grossman, 444 U.S. 1311, 1312 (1980);
28 C.F.R. § 2.20(c). The Commission's decisions
involving parole will not be disturbed absent flagrant,
unwarranted, or unauthorized action. See Maddox, 821
F.2d at 1000; Stroud v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 668
F.2d 843, 846 (5th Cir. 1982); Page v. United States
Parole Commission, 651 F.2d 1083, 1085 (5th Cir. 1981).
A Commission determination is only reversible by a court if
the decision is so arbitrary and capricious as to be beyond
the Commission's discretion, or violative of the
prisoner's constitutional rights. See Brown v.
Lundgren, 528 F.2d 1050, 1054 (5th Cir. 1976).
alleges that he was denied parole due to his history of
disciplinary infractions and because he was “aggressive
and inappropriate.” (Doc. 1, p. 5). Warren does not
allege any abuse of discretion by the Commission. He does not
claim that the Commission exceeded its authority, acted
unconstitutionally, or failed to follow its own regulations.
Even if the Parole Commission found that Warren satisfied all
requirements under the parole guidelines, it still had the
discretion to deny parole. Ellis, 84 F.3d at 1413,
does not claim that his incarceration is unconstitutional,
that he was denied any constitutionally protected procedures,
or that the USPC acted unconstitutionally. To the extent
Warren claims he has a general constitutional right to be
released on parole, his claim fails.