Medley v. U.S. Parole Commission
This text of Medley v. U.S. Parole Commission (Medley v. U.S. Parole Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________ ) JUAN ANTHONY MEDLEY, ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 11-1893 (RWR) ) U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION et al., ) ) ) Respondents. ) __________________________________________)
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On December 9, 2011, petitioner was ordered to respond by January 20, 2012, to
respondents’ opposition to his application for a writ of habeas corpus or risk dismissal of the
case. On February 6, 2012, petitioner was given additional advisements and ordered to respond
by March 5, 2012, or risk dismissal of the case. Petitioner has neither complied with the orders
nor sought additional time to do so.1 He therefore has conceded the United States Parole
Commission’s (“USPC”) argument establishing its jurisdiction over petitioner at the time of his
parole revocation. See USPC’s Opp’n to Pet’r’s Pet. for a Writ of Habeas Corpus [Doc. # 8] at
5-8. A separate Order of dismissal accompanies this Memorandum Opinion.
_________/s/_____________ RICHARD W. ROBERTS DATE: April 9, 2012 United States District Judge
1 Because petitioner failed in his responsibility to maintain a current address of record, the March 5, 2012, order was returned “as undeliverable.” Clerk’s Dkt. Entries 11, 12.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Medley v. U.S. Parole Commission, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/medley-v-us-parole-commission-dcd-2012.