Lutton v. U.S. Parole Commission

Background

Rex M. Lutton filed this case without a lawyer under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the federal statute that allows a person to challenge the execution of a federal sentence. The opinion says Lutton is a federal inmate housed at Santa Rita Jail in Dublin, California.

Lutton received a 30-year federal sentence in 1984 for bank robbery and escape. After his original release, he received additional federal convictions, including a 2005 conviction for escape. In about 2009, the U.S. Parole Commission found that he had violated parole on the 1984 conviction and ordered him to serve more time in federal prison. His effective parole date was October 11, 2011.

In August 2011, Lutton was charged with three robbery counts in Los Angeles County Superior Court. He pleaded guilty to one count in December 2011 and apparently received a 15-year state-prison sentence. While in state custody, he asked the Parole Commission to act on a detainer. The Commission declined to act while he remained in state custody.

After Lutton was released from state custody on or about November 19, 2020, a U.S. Marshal took him into custody, apparently based on a Parole Commission warrant. The Commission issued a Notice of Action on December 9, 2020. It stated that Lutton had been on escape status for about nine years and ordered that his October 11, 2011 parole date be reopened and delayed retroactively, followed by a rescission hearing. Lutton remained in custody at Santa Rita Jail and had not received that hearing or information about when it would occur.

Claims

Lutton alleged that the Parole Commission violated his constitutional right to due process and its own regulations by failing to provide a prompt rescission hearing and by reopening and delaying his parole date without procedural protections. He argued that these violations entitled him to immediate release. The opinion states that he did not seek an order requiring a rescission hearing.

Court’s ruling

The court explained that a person whose parole may be revoked has limited due-process rights before revocation, including notice, an opportunity to be heard, access to relevant documents, and other listed procedures. It also noted that the Parole Commission’s regulations require procedural protections for rescission proceedings.

The court concluded that, read generously, Lutton’s allegations stated claims that could support relief. It therefore ordered the clerk to serve the petition and order on the Parole Commission and relevant government attorneys. The Commission had to file an answer showing why the requested relief should not be granted by May 14, 2021, along with relevant documents. Lutton could file a response by June 11, 2021.

This order did not decide whether Lutton was entitled to immediate release or other habeas relief. It required the respondent to respond because the petition was not subject to summary dismissal at this stage.