Samuel John Major Davis, Jr. v. United States Parole Commission

870 F.2d 657, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 2682, 1989 WL 25837
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
DecidedMarch 7, 1989
Docket88-5905
StatusUnpublished
Cited by40 cases

This text of 870 F.2d 657 (Samuel John Major Davis, Jr. v. United States Parole Commission) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Samuel John Major Davis, Jr. v. United States Parole Commission, 870 F.2d 657, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 2682, 1989 WL 25837 (6th Cir. 1989).

Opinion

870 F.2d 657

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.
Samuel John Major DAVIS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 88-5905.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

March 7, 1989.

Before BOYCE F. MARTIN Jr. and RYAN, Circuit Judges, and JOHN W. POTTER, District Judge.*

ORDER

This case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination of the briefs and record, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed.R.App.P. 34(a).

Samuel John Major Davis, Jr., appeals the dismissal of his petition for writ of habeas corpus filed under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241. Davis alleged that the defendant Parole Commission improperly set his presumptive parole date outside the parole guidelines. The district court dismissed the petition as duplicative of a pending habeas petition in which petitioner also alleged that the Parole Commission improperly set his presumptive parole date.

Upon consideration, we conclude that the district court properly dismissed the petition. Petitioner does not dispute the district court's finding that the instant petition is "essentially the same" as the earlier petition. Further, the district court noted that petitioner may seek to amend his other petition in order to assert any new grounds for relief. Under these undisputed circumstances, we conclude that dismissal was proper.

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed. Rule 9(b)(5), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

*

The Honorable John W. Potter, U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio, sitting by designation

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
870 F.2d 657, 1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 2682, 1989 WL 25837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/samuel-john-major-davis-jr-v-united-states-parole-commission-ca6-1989.