Manning v. United States Department of Justice
- John Cronan
- 1:22-cv-01367
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Manning v. United States Department of Justice, Judge Cronan dismissed Manning’s release claims and denied amendment because habeas was required.
Robert Steven Manning’s complaint seeking immediate parole and release was dismissed, and his motion to amend was denied. The court stated that the dismissal was without prejudice to a habeas petition filed in the proper jurisdiction, identified as the District of Arizona.
What happened
In Manning v. United States Department of Justice, Robert Steven Manning sought immediate parole and release from prison after the United States Parole Commission denied him parole. He challenged the hearing through claims for declaratory relief, an injunction, and a court order requiring action.
The court held that a request for release from prison must be brought through a habeas petition, not those types of claims. It dismissed Manning’s complaint because this court lacked authority to hear it and, alternatively, because the complaint did not state a valid claim. The court explained that any habeas petition would have to be filed in the district where Manning is confined, Arizona.
Judge John P. Cronan also denied Manning’s request to amend the complaint because adding the prison warden would not fix the problem. The court entered judgment and closed the case, while stating that the dismissal was without prejudice to a habeas petition filed in the proper jurisdiction.
The detailed version
- Manning v. United States Department of Justice · No. 1:22-cv-01367
- John Cronan
- Feb. 17, 2023
Background
Robert Steven Manning sought immediate parole and release from prison from the United States Department of Justice and the United States Parole Commission. Manning was serving a life sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution Phoenix in Phoenix, Arizona. The Parole Commission denied parole after a November 3, 2020 hearing, and the denial was affirmed on administrative appeal.
Manning asserted three claims: declaratory relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201, injunctive relief, and a writ of mandamus under the All Writs Act. Each claim sought his immediate parole and release. He alleged that the parole hearing officer considered improper testimony and rejected favorable information.
Court’s Analysis
The defendants moved to dismiss. The court explained that when a person challenges the fact or duration of imprisonment and seeks immediate or speedier release, the sole federal remedy is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus. For a federal prisoner challenging the execution of a sentence, that remedy is generally available under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
Because Manning sought immediate parole and release, the court concluded that his claims could be brought only through a habeas petition. Declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and mandamus did not provide a basis for the release he requested. The court therefore dismissed the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), and alternatively for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
The court also determined that a habeas petition would not be available in the Southern District of New York because Manning was confined in Arizona. It stated that the District of Arizona was the district with jurisdiction over a § 2241 petition challenging his present physical custody.
Disposition
The court denied Manning’s motion to amend the complaint as futile. His proposed amendment would have added the warden of the Federal Correctional Institution Phoenix, but the court found that this would not cure the defect in the complaint. The court dismissed the complaint, entered judgment, and closed the case. The dismissal was without prejudice to any habeas petition Manning might file in the proper jurisdiction.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.