Opinion
Civil Action No. 10-1987 (EGS).
February 10, 2011
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This matter is before the Court on its initial review of the petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought by an inmate at the District of Columbia Jail. For the following reasons, the Court denies the petition.
The extraordinary remedy of habeas corpus is available to District of Columbia prisoners upon a showing that the prisoner is "in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Petitioner claims that he is "being illegally incarcerated, pursuant to the issuance of a `parole violator warrant' issued by a Bureau of the Executive branch of government, not a `Judicial Warrant' issued by a court of competent jurisdiction." Pet. at 1. He challenges the local statute governing supervised release, D.C. Code § 24-403.01, on the ground that its execution violates the separation of powers doctrine. Id.
As the paroling authority for District of Columbia prisoners, the United States Parole Commission is authorized by § 24-403.01(6) to grant, deny or revoke a District of Columbia offender's parole supervision and to impose or modify his parole conditions. See D.C. Code § 24-131(a); Thompson v. District of Columbia Dep't of Corrections, 511 F. Supp.2d 111, 114 (D.D.C. 2007). Because the foregoing statutes govern the execution of a judicially imposed sentence, "[t]he Parole Commission does not exercise a judicial function and its decisions do not violate the separation of powers." Montgomery v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, Civ. Action No. 06-2133 (CKK), 2007 WL 1232190, at *2 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 2007) (citing cases); accord Leach v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 522 F. Supp. 2d 250, 251 (D.D.C. 2007); Hammett v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, Civ. Action No. 10-0442 (JDB), 2010 WL 1257669, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 2, 2010) (observing that "[t]his argument, and similar separation of powers arguments, have been raised often and rejected each time."). Accordingly, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied. A separate Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
Date: February 10, 2011