Cases

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARLES LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 22-cv-2182-RCL U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Named plaintiffs Charles Lewis, Anthony Mack, Carlton Paige, and Darin Hagins, on behalf of a putative class of parolees in the Distr

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CHARLES LEWIS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 1:22-cv-2182-RCL UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION This case involves troubling allegations that the U.S. Parole Commission has been derelict in its statutory obligati

448 F.Supp. 1327 (1978) Jerry Lee LEWIS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION and Warden, Federal Correctional Institution, Respondents. Civ. A. No. 7-72225. United States District Court, E. D. Michigan, S. D. April 20, 1978. *1328 Charles E. Kirksey, Jr., Harris, Kirksey & Thomas, St. Louis, Mo., for petitioner.

57 F.3d 1076NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Robert Lewis FULTZ, Petitioner-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee. No. 94-55184. United

768 A.2d 591 (2001) Arthur MASON, Appellant v. UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Appellee. No. 00-SP-150. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. Submitted February 27, 2001. Decided March 15, 2001. Richard T. Moore, Washington, DC, appointed by the court, filed a brief for appellant. Wilma A. Lewis, United States Attorney, and Suzanne Grealy C

Opinion for the Court filed PER CURIAM. PER CURIAM: Matthew Noble, a District of Columbia prisoner who was held in federal custody, appeals the district court’s denial of a writ of habeas corpus. He argues that he has been deprived of equal protection because other prisoners were erroneously released earlier than they should have been. We affirm. <

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OLIVER M. BOLING, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 15-1623 (BAH) ) Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell

WOLF, J. George Lewis, appellant, appeals from the trial court’s determination that his petition for writ of mandamus challenging his presumptive parole release date (PPRD) was untimely as a result of the application of section 95.11(5)(f), Florida Statutes (2011). He alleges that the statute constitutes an unconstitutional infringement on the Florida Supreme Court’s rulemaking power pursuant to article V, section 2(a) of the

EBEL, Circuit Judge. This appeal raises the following four questions: 1. Can evidence that was known by investigative agencies but not by the United States Parole Commission (“the Commission”) at the time of a prisoner’s initial parole determination be considered “new information” sufficient for the Commission to reopen the prisoner’s ease under

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) BOBBY D. MORGAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 14–cv-0770 (KBJ) ) UNITED STATES PAROLE ) COMMISSION, et al.,

FILED UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 23 2314 F@R THE DISTRICT OF C()LUMBIA clerk u.s. nismcr s. Bankruprcy Courts for the District of Columbia David Lewis Turner, Jr., Plaintiff, v. civil A¢mm N@. / §¢- §¢ U.S. Parole Commission, Defendant. \J\/\}§/\./§/\./\/\/\./ MEl\/IORANDUM OPINION This matter is before the Court on review ofplaintifi` s pro se complaint and application to proceed informal pauperis. The Court will grant plaintiff s application to proceed in forma pauperis and wil

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ERIC LEWIS, : : Plaintiff, : : v. : Civil Action No. 10-0605 (RWR) : U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., :

MEMORANDUM OPINION Denying the Plaintiff’s Motion for Relief Upon Reconsideration; Granting Leave to the Plaintiff to File a Renewed Motion for Relief Upon Reconsideration RICARDO M. URBINA, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on the pro se plaint

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ERIC LEWIS, : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 10-0605 (RMU) : v. : Re Document Nos.: 17, 21 : U.S. P

770 F.Supp.2d 246 (2011) Eric LEWIS, Plaintiff, v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 10-0605 (RMU). United States District Court, District of Columbia. March 18, 2011. *247 Eric Lewis, Petersburg, VA, pro se. Jonathan Lee Kaplan, U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia, Washington, DC,

OPINION MUIR, District Judge. Fitzpatrick has filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 alleging that Respondents’ failure to afford him a hearing within a reasonable time after his arrest pursuant to a parole violator’s warrant violated his constitutional rights. On January 11, 1978, following a hearing held before United States Magistrate Havas and his submission of recommended findings of fact and

HARTZ, Circuit Judge. Randy Gometz (Petitioner) has been in federal prison since receiving a 15-year sentence for bank robbery in 1975. While serving time he has been convicted of several additional crimes, each of which resulted in a sentence to be served consecutively to his other sentences. The offenses, together with the year and length of sentence are as follows: assaultin

CANADY, J. The Florida Parole Commission seeks review of Taylor v. Florida Parole Commission, 75 So.3d 307 (Fla. 1st DCA 2011), in which the First District Court of Appeal granted a petition for second-tier certiorari and quashed an order by the Third Judicial Circuit Court. Because the First District granted certiorari relief based on a de novo review of the a

This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the Fourth District Court of Appeal in Jones v. Florida Parole Commission, 4 So.3d 91 (Fla. 4th DCA 2009). The district court certified that its decision is in direct conflict with the decisions of the First and Second District Courts of Appeal in Martin v. Florida Parole Commission, 951 So.2d 84 (Fla. 1st DCA 2007), and Carpenter v. F

LABARGA, J. This case is before the Court for review of the decision of the First District Court of Appeal in Spaziano v. Florida Parole Commission, 46 So.3d 576 (1st DCA 2006). In its decision, the district court certified a question of great public importance, which we have rephrased as follows: DOES THE EXEMPTION IN SECTION 57.085(10), FLORIDA STATUTES, APPLY TO ANY INMATE ACTIONS CHA