Harvey Willard Merriweather v. United States Parole Commission

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties consented to proceed**
before a magistrate judge.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
HARVEY WILLARD
MERRIWEATHER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES PAROLE
COMMISSION,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-16481
D.C. No. 2:08-cv-01977-JFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John F. Moulds, Magistrate Judge, Presiding *
*
Submitted October 19, 2010***
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Harvey Willard Merriweather, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se from the
FILED
OCT 29 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16481 2
district court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the
United States Parole Commission (USPC) to dismiss a parole violator warrant
lodged as a detainer. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for
an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of mandamus relief, and review de
novo whether the requirements for mandamus relief have been met. Johnson v.
Reilly, 349 F.3d 1149, 1154 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
The district court properly concluded that the USPC did not violate
Merriweather’s due process rights because he is not entitled to a hearing until the
parole violator warrant is executed. See Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78, 86-89
(1976) (execution of the warrant is the “operative event triggering any loss of
liberty attendant upon parole revocation”); Smith v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 875 F.2d
1361, 1364 (9th Cir. 1989) (USPC has the sole authority to decide when a parole
violation warrant will be executed). Further, Merriweather is not entitled to relief
for delay in the conduct of the dispositional review of the parole detainer, because
he has received such review and has not shown prejudice or bad faith. See Poynor
v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 878 F.2d 275, 277 (9th Cir. 1989). Accordingly, denial of
Merriweather’s petition was proper.
Merriweather’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --