United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
GREGORY K. FRIZELL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Davon Rooks, appearing through counsel, filed a petition for
writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt. 2) on
May 6, 2019. At that time, Petitioner, a federal
parolee, was detained at the David L. Moss Criminal Justice
Center, in Tulsa, Oklahoma, “upon the authority of the
U.S. Marshals” following his arrest on January 14,
2019, for an alleged parole violation. Dkt. 2, at 1.
Petitioner alleges, as of May 6, 2019, he had “been in
custody for 112 days without [a] revocation hearing.”
Id. at 3. Based on Petitioner's representations,
the Court ordered Respondent to show cause why the writ
should not issue. Dkt. 3. On consideration of the petition,
Respondent's response (Dkt. 8), and Petitioner's
reply (Dkt. 11), the Court denies the petition.
following facts are drawn from the parties' pleadings and
exhibits. The Federal Bureau of Prisons released Petitioner
on parole on November 16, 2018, under the supervision of the
United States Probation Office for the Northern District of
Oklahoma (USPO). Dkt. 8, at 1; Dkt. 8-2, at 3. Citing
Petitioner's alleged failure to report to his supervising
officer, the USPO applied for, and the United States Parole
Commission (USPC) issued, an arrest warrant for Petitioner in
December 2018. Dkt. 8, at 1; Dkt. 8-4; Dkt. 8-5. Pursuant to
the warrant, the United States Marshal's Service (USMS)
in the Northern District of Oklahoma arrested Petitioner on
January 14, 2019. Dkt. 8, at 2; Dkt. 8-7, at 1. Following his
arrest, Petitioner was detained at the David L. Moss Criminal
Justice Center (DLMCJC), in Tulsa, Oklahoma. Id.;
Dkt. 2, at 1.
Deputy Chief United States Probation Officer Michael
Woolridge conducted a preliminary interview with Petitioner
on February 4, 2019. Dkt. 8-7, at 1. Petitioner waived his
right to have an attorney present for the interview and
admitted that he failed to report to his supervising officer
on December 17, 2018, as directed by the officer, and failed
to have any contact with the officer after December 14, 2018.
Id.; Dkt. 8-6, at 2. Based on Petitioner's
admissions, Woolridge found probable cause to believe that
Petitioner violated his parole conditions. Dkt. 8-7, at 2.
Petitioner requested a local revocation hearing and,
contemporaneously with that request, waived his right to have
an attorney represent him at that hearing. Id. at 1;
Dkt. 8-6, at 3-4.
applied for a short-term sanction on February 7, 2019. Dkt.
8-8. In doing so, he accepted responsibility for the alleged
parole violation and “agree[d] to waive [his]
revocation hearing.” Id. at 1. By signing the
short-term sanction application, Petitioner indicated his
understanding that if the USPC did not approve his request
for a sanction of eight months or less, his waiver of the
revocation hearing would be void and the USPC would schedule
a revocation hearing “within 90 days from the
date” of his arrest. Id. Petitioner further
indicated that he had no current release residence and that
he understood the USPC could thus release him directly to a
residential reentry center or an in-patient treatment program
upon his return to supervision. Id. at 2.
USPC hearing examiners reviewed Petitioner's short-term
sanction application on February 11, 2019. Dkt. 8, at 2; Dkt.
8-9. The examiners recommended that the USPC revoke
Petitioner's parole and establish a new parole date of
May 13, 2019, “after the service of 4 months with drug
aftercare and Residential Re-entry Center placement for up to
120 days.” Dkt. 8-9, at 2. The USPC issued a Notice of
Action on February 13, 2019, adopting the examiners'
recommendations. Dkt. 8-10.
remained at the DLMCJC, under the USMS's custody, pending
his re-parole date of May 13, 2019. Dkt. 8, at 2. According
to Petitioner's counsel, Petitioner did not receive the
February 13, 2019 Notice of Action and “was never told
of his release date.” Dkt. 11, at 3. In late April,
Petitioner's family contacted the Federal Public
Defender's Office in Tulsa to determine why Petitioner
was jailed in Tulsa. Id. Sometime before April 30,
2019, Petitioner's counsel spoke with Petitioner and the
USPO; neither Petitioner nor the USPO informed counsel of
Petitioner's May 13, 2019 re-parole date. Id.
point-between February 4, 2019, and May 3, 2019-Petitioner
provided either the USPO or the USMS a possible release
address in Broken Arrow, Oklahoma. Dkt. 8, at 2; Dkt. 11, at
2-3; Dkt. 8-11. On May 6, 2019, the USPC notified the USMS
that Petitioner's “release plan” would not be
approved because the address he provided was for a residence
belonging to his girlfriend, a convicted felon. Dkt. 8-11, at
Petitioner was being held without a release date and had not
been provided a revocation hearing, Petitioner's counsel
filed the instant § 2241 habeas petition on May 6, 2019.
Dkt. 2, at 1; Dkt. 11, at 3. Petitioner alleged he had been
in custody for 112 days without a revocation hearing, in
violation of his 14th Amendment right to due process and 18
U.S.C. § 4214. Id. at 2-3. Petitioner sought an
evidentiary hearing and an order directing his immediate
release. Id. at 3. Based on Petitioner's
representations, the Court directed Respondent to show cause
why the writ should not issue. Dkt. 3.
USPO released a copy of the February 13, 2019 Notice of
Action to Petitioner's counsel on May 7, 2019. Dkt. 11,
at 3; Dkt. 11-1, at 1. According to counsel, this was the
first time Petitioner knew of his May 13, 2019 re-parole
date. Id. Two days later, on May 9, 2019, the USPC
issued a second Notice of Action reflecting its decision to
“reopen and retard [the] presumptive parole date of May
13, 2019 by 120 days and parole [Petitioner] effective
September 12, 2019.” Dkt. 8-12. In the Notice of
Action, the USPC indicated Petitioner needed additional time
“to develop a satisfactory release plan.”
Id. at 1. Counsel learned on May 10, 2019, via an
email from the USPO, that none of Petitioner's release
plan options were suitable and that the USPO would not be
supervising Petitioner upon his release. Dkt. 11, at 5; Dkt.
11-3. Petitioner was transferred to the Federal Transfer
Center on May 16, 2019, and has since been transferred to a
federal prison on the east coast. Dkt. 8, at 3; Dkt. 11, at
5; Dkt. 11-2.
seeks an order directing his release from confinement on two
grounds. First, in his habeas petition, Petitioner alleges he
was held on a parole violation for more than 90 days without
a revocation hearing, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 4214
and his 14th Amendment right to due process. Dkt. 2, at 2-3.
Second, in his reply brief, Petitioner alleges his current
confinement is unlawful because “actions of the
government” prevented him from submitting a suitable
release plan. Dkt. 11, at 2-7.
urges this Court to deny the habeas petition because (1)
Petitioner waived his right to a revocation hearing and (2)
his continued incarceration is ...