CROCKETT v. U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION et al, No. 1:2011cv02124 - Document 10 (D.D.C. 2012)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 9/17/12. (ms, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________ ) ) ) Petitioner, ) ) v. ) ) U.S. PAROLE COMMISSION, et al., ) ) Respondents. ) _________________________________________ ) WARDELL CROCKETT, JR., Civil Action No. 11-2124 (RBW) MEMORANDUM OPINION At the time petitioner filed his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, he was detained at the District of Columbia Jail pursuant to a parole violator warrant issued by the United States Parole Commission ( USPC ). See Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in Custody in the District of Columbia [Dkt. #1] at 5. The USPC filed a motion to dismiss the petition [Dkt. #5] on February 6, 2012. On February 8, 2012, the Court issued an Order which directed the petitioner to file his opposition or other response to the motion no later than March 9, 2012. The Order notified petitioner that, if he failed to respond by that date, the Court would treat the USPC s motion as conceded and may summarily dismiss this case. To date, petitioner neither has filed an opposition, a request for more time to file an opposition, nor a change of address. 1 1 Pursuant to the USPC s February 3, 2012 Notice of Action, see United States Parole Commission Motion to Dismiss Petitioner s Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, Ex. F, petitioner was to be released from custody, although the date of petitioner s release is not indicated. Neither the District of Columbia Department of Corrections VINELink nor the Federal Bureau of Prisons Inmate Locator indicates that petitioner remains in custody. 1 Accordingly, the Court treats the motion as conceded and will grant respondent s motion to dismiss. An Order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. DATE: September 17, 2012 REGGIE B. WALTON United States District Judge 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
