Court Cases Court Cases
AL  AK  AZ  AR  CA  CO  CT  DE  FL  GA  HI  ID  IL  IN  IA  KS  KY  LA  ME  MD  MA  MI  MN  MS  MO  MT  NE  NV 
NH  NJ  NM  NY  NC  ND  OH  OK  OR  PA  RI  SC  SD  TN  TX  UT  VT  VA  WA  WV  WI  WY  EO  NR  PR  DC  US 
 
View Case Details
 
ROBERT MADDOX Plaintiff
vs.
UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION Defendant
 
Case:
No. 88 C 7257
 
Location:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS EASTERN DIVISION
 
Date:
January 11 1989 Decided
 
Attorneys:
Robert Maddox appeared Pro Se.
Hon. Anton R. Valukas U. S. Attorney by Michele E. Smith Asst. U. S. Attorney Chicago Illinois.
 
Court:
Nicholas J. Bua United States District Judge.
 
Author:
The Hon. Justice Bua
 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2241 plaintiff Robert Maddox filed this habeas corpus action against the United States Parole Commission ("the Commission"). The Commission granted Maddox parole from the Metropolitan Correctional Center on September 16 1984. Originally no special conditions were attached to Maddox's parole. However on July 30 1987 the Commission decided to condition Maddox's continued parole on his participation in a drug after-care program. The Commission's decision to add drug treatment as a condition of Maddox's parole was based on information it received through Maddox's probation officer. The probation officer had learned that Maddox was using cocaine and exhibiting aberrant behavior.

In his habeas petition Maddox requests this court to release him from probation or alternatively to eliminate the requirement that he participate in the drug treatment program as a condition of his parole. Maddox claims he is entitled to such relief because conditioning his parole on participation in the drug program is unconstitutional in two respects. First Maddox claims that he was denied due process because he was not properly notified of the proposed condition in advance. Secondly Maddox claims that the procedures used to administer the drug treatment program -- specifically the taking of his urine samples -- also violated his fifth amendment rights.

The court rejects Maddox's arguments and finds that Maddox is not entitled to release from parole or removal of the special condition placed on his parole. As a preliminary matter the court finds that Maddox has standing to assert a habeas claim. A prisoner who has been placed on parole is still "in custody" within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. SEC. 2241. Mabry v. Johnson 467 U.S. 504 506 n.3 81 L. Ed. 2d 437 104 S. Ct. 2543 (1984); Swanger v. Zimmerman 750 F.2d 291 293 n.1 (3d Cir. 1984). The grounds which Maddox asserts to support his habeas claim however are unfounded. Maddox's claim that he was not given proper notice of the condition on his parole is belied by the fact that he submitted a written objection to the proposed condition prior to its taking effect. The Commission's order implementing that condition was executed on July 30 1987. Three weeks earlier on July 9 1987 Maddox had written a letter addressed to the Commission containing the following caption: "Re: Objections to Proposed Modification of Parole." This letter clearly evidences that Maddox had received notice of the proposed condition on his parole at least ten days before it officially became effective. Thus the notice requirements outlined in 18 U.S.C. SEC. 4209(d)(1) for modifications of parole were met. In addition although Maddox complains that his probation officer had requested him to submit urine samples well before the Commission formally modified his parole there is no indication that these requests were tantamount to a formal condition or modification of parole by the Commission. Therefore the SEC. 4209(d)(1) notice requirement is not applicable to the probation officer's requests.

Finally with regard to Maddox's complaints concerning the procedures by which urine samples were taken this court finds nothing to substantiate Maddox's allegations that his constitutional rights were violated. The procedures Maddox describes even if accurately depicted conform with principles of due process. Accordingly Maddox's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.