Habeas corpus.

U.S. District Court

ALIEN

In Re Soliman, 134 F.Supp.2d 1238 (N.D.Ala. 2001). An alien filed a petition for habeas corpus challenging his indefinite detention and force-feeding during his hunger strike. The district court denied the petition, finding that the U.S. Attorney General did not abuse her discretion when determining that the alien, who had admitted to associating with dangerous terrorists and extremists and had been convicted in Egypt of various crimes, was dangerous and a flight risk. The court found that force-feeding the alien was reasonable and did not offend the alien's First Amendment right of privacy, so long as a nasogastric tube or intravenous feeding procedures were employed. (U.S. Bureau of Prisons)

U.S. Appeals Court

DISCIPLINE

GOOD TIME

Montgomery v. Anderson 262 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 2001). A state prisoner filed for habeas corpus relief alleging that the state had violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when it placed him in disciplinary segregation and reduced his credit-earning class. The district court denied the petition and the appeals court affirmed. The appeals court held that the alleged inadequacies of the prison disciplinary board's finding of facts did not deny the prisoner due process, where the board explicitly relied on a conduct report and investigation which supplied details. The court noted that state prisoners have "more than a subjective hope for good-time credit" in a system that initially puts every prisoner in a class which allows good-time credit to accrue unless there is a violation of an enumerated rule. (Indiana State Prison)

U.S. District Court

GOOD TIME

PAROLE

Moore v. Hofbaure, 144 F. Supp.2d 877 (E.D.Mich. 2001). A state parolee petitioned for habeas corpus relief alleging that his parole revocation hearing was not timely and that a warden had improperly rescinded his good time credits. The district court denied the petition. The district court held that the state warden's discretionary decision not to award special good time sentence credits to the parole absconder, for the period that he was at large in the community and tested positive for drugs, did not violate the parolee's due process rights. The court found that the final hearing before revocation of parole, which was held two months after the parolee was taken into custody on a parole violator warrant, was reasonably timely even though a state law required the hearing to be held within 45 days. (Marquette Branch Prison, Michigan)

U.S. District court

SEX OFFENDERS

Rogers v. Illinois Dept. of Corrections Spec. Unit. 160 F.Supp.2d 972 (N.D.Ill. 2001). Present and former civil detainees in state correctional centers brought an action against psychologists who had recommended their confinement as 'sexually violent persons' under Illinois' Sexually Violent Persons Commitment Act (SVPCA). The district court dismissed the claims of the present detainees, noting that they could petition for habeas corpus relief to challenge their current confinement. But the court found that the former detainees asserted a constitutional violation of equal protection by alleging that their own race was a motivating factor for selecting them for confinement from a pool of eligible defendants, insofar as their race related to the race of their victims. The former detainees are all African-American offenders who committed crimes against at least one Caucasian victim. (Sheridan Correctional Center and Joliet Correctional Center, Illinois)

U.S. District court

PAROLE

Sparks v. Gaines 144 F. Supp.2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001). A District of Columbia prisoner filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that his due process rights had been violated by the failure of the U.S. Sentencing Commission to hold a parole revocation hearing in deciding whether to reparole him. The district court denied the petition and found that the Commission was not required to hold a parole revocation hearing. (District of Columbia Board of Parole)

U.S. District Court

JUVENILE

Steele v. Withrow 157 F.Supp.2d 734 E.D. Mich. 2001). An inmate in state court custody sought a writ of habeas corpus alleging the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him as an adult. The federal district court denied the inmate's application, finding that the trial court's determination that the defendant should be sentenced as an adult for an offense which happened when the defendant was 15 years old was not unreasonable in light of the evidence presented. A probation agent had testified that the defendant was not amenable to treatment, was disruptive at a juvenile detention center, and would be dangerous if released at age 21. A social services agent had testified that the defendant should be sentenced as an adult based on the severity of his crime and his poor participation in the juvenile justice system. (Flint, Michigan)