The opinion
United States District Court
for the
Southern District of Florida
Ralph J. Hyppolite II, Petitioner- )
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 22-21786-Civ-Scola
)
The Honorable Frank Kendall, and )
others, Respondents-Defendants. )
Order Adopting in Part Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations
This action is a petition for habeas corpus, among other related relief, by
Petitioner Ralph J. Hyppolite II and was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Jonathan Goodman for a ruling on all pre-trial, non-dispositive matters,
and for a report and recommendations on any dispositive matters. (ECF No.
19.) Judge Goodman has issued a report on Hyppolite’s habeas petition,
recommending that this Court 1) deny Hyppolite’s habeas petition without
prejudice, 2) permit Hyppolite to add the Air Force Clemency and Parole Board
(“AFCPB”) as a Respondent, 3) transfer the case to the District of Maryland,
and 4) decline to issue a certificate of appealability. (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 35 at
19.) Judge Goodman also recommended that this Court deny without prejudice
Hyppolite’s requests for declaratory judgment and a writ of mandamus. After
reviewing the filings, the applicable law, and the record, the Court partly
adopts Judge Goodman’s report and recommendations (ECF No. 35),
denying the habeas petition without prejudice and transferring the case to the
District of Maryland, where Hyppolite may amend his petition to add the Air
Force Clemency and Parole Board as a Respondent as that court sees fit. The
Court also declines to issue a certificate of appealability and denies without
prejudice Hyppolite’s requests for declaratory judgment and a writ of
mandamus.
1. Background
This matter arises from Ralph J. Hyppolite II’s petition to this Court for a
writ of habeas corpus, writ of mandamus, and declaratory judgment relating to
his Air Force court martial sentence of six years of imprisonment and
subsequent parole. The facts and procedural history are complex—as the
Magistrate Judge notes, Hyppolite “was convicted in Japan, imprisoned in
California, and now presently resides in Florida.” (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 35 at
10.)
However, most relevant for our purposes are the facts relating to the
organization or official with authority over Hyppolite at the time that he filed
his petition because “the proper respondent to a habeas petition is the person
who has custody over the petitioner.” (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 35 at 8 (citing 28
U.S.C. § 2242; Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 434 (2004).) The Air Force
Clemency and Parole Board had granted Hyppolite parole when he filed this
petition. (Rep. & Rec., ECF No. 35 at 15.) At the time, violations of the terms of
Hyppolite’s parole were reported to the AFCPD. (Id.)
2. Legal Standard
“In order to challenge the findings and recommendations of the
magistrate judge, a party must file written objections which shall specifically
identify the portions of the proposed findings and recommendation to which
objection is made and the specific basis for objection.” Macort v. Prem, Inc., 208
F. App’x 781, 783 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting Heath v. Jones, 863 F.2d 815, 822
(11th Cir. 1989)) (cleaned up). The objections must also present “supporting
legal authority.” L. R. 4(b). Once a district court receives “objections meeting
the specificity requirement set out above,” it must “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report to which objection is made and
may accept, reject, or modify in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” Macort, 208 F. App’x at 783-
84 (quoting Heath, 863 F.2d at 822) (cleaned up). To the extent a party fails to
object to parts of the magistrate judge’s report, those portions may be reviewed
for clear error. Macort, 208 F. App’x at 784.
3. Analysis
Both the Respondents and the Petitioner have filed objections. The
Respondents object to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that Hyppolite
be permitted to add the AFCPB as a Respondent on the grounds that the
AFCPB no longer has any authority over Hyppolite. (Resp’ts’ Objs., ECF No. 37
at 2.) Hyppolite’s sentence expired on June 7, 2023, and therefore, they argue,
only the Secretary of the Air Force maintains any legal authority to act on a
judicial order on Hyppolite’s habeas petition. The Respondents contend that
the case should therefore be transferred to the Eastern District of Virginia,
where the Secretary of the Air Force is located. (Resp’ts’ Objs., ECF No. 37 at
2.) The correct sequence of events, in the Respondents’ view, is to 1) dismiss
the Secretary of Defense, Chief Probation Officer, Department of Defense,
Department of the Air Force, and the United States as Respondents, 2) dismiss
without prejudice Hyppolite’s mandamus and declaratory judgment requests,
3) deny a certificate of appealability, and 4) transfer the case to the Eastern
District of Virginia.
Hyppolite also objects to the report and recommendations, but only on
the grounds that the order in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that the
Court proceed is unworkable. (Pet’r’s Objs., ECF No. 36 at 1-2.) Hyppolite
argues that first denying the habeas petition without prejudice before
permitting Hyppolite to add the AFBCP as a respondent is not possible because
the denial would strip the Court of jurisdiction, although he does not offer any
authority for this argument. (Id.) Instead, Hyppolite requests that the Court
allow him to add the AFBCP as a respondent before dismissing the claims
without prejudice and transferring the case to the District of Maryland. (Id. at
2.) Hyppolite also objects to the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the
Court decline to issue a certificate of appealability because Hyppolite has made
a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and that
reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition should have been resolved
differently. (Id.)
The Court does not accept the objections of either the Petitioner or the
Respondents, and largely adopts the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge,
with a small adjustment. First, the Court disagrees with the Respondents that
the Secretary of the Air Force is the appropriate authority for purposes of
habeas jurisdiction here. As Judge Goodman recognized, courts analyze habeas
jurisdiction, including the custody determination, as of the date of the
petition’s filing. See Brown v. Kendall, No. CV DLB-22-410, 2023 WL 2648781,
at *4 (D. Md. Mar. 27, 2023). “[O]nce the federal jurisdiction has attached in
the District Court, it is not defeated by the release of the petitioner prior to
completion of proceedings on [the habeas] application.” Plymail v. Mirandy, 8
F.4th 308, 314 (4th Cir. 2021). Instead, jurisdiction remains with the
organization or person with custody of a petitioner at the time of the petition’s
filing, as the District of Maryland held last year. See Brown, 2023 WL 2648781,
at *4. The Court therefore agrees with the Magistrate Judge (and the Petitioner)
that the appropriate destination for this case is the District of Maryland, where
the AFCPB is located.
Second, the Court rejects the Petitioner’s argument that the Court
should allow him to amend his petition to add the AFBCP as a respondent
before the Court denies the habeas petition, but also parts ways with the
Magistrate Judge on this point. (Pet’r’s Objs., ECF No. 36 at 1.) The Magistrate
Judge recommended that the Court allow Hyppolite to add the AFBCP as a
respondent after denying the habeas petition, and Hyppolite objected to the
order in which to undertake those actions. The Court disagrees that Hyppolite
must add the AFBCP as a respondent at all before the case is transferred. This
Court is denying the petition because it lacks jurisdiction; the district court
with jurisdiction over the case is the one positioned to consider arguments on
the proper respondent, and it has done so in the past post-transfer. See Brown
v. Kendall, No. CV DLB-22-410, 2023 WL 2648781, at *4 (D. Md. Mar. 27,
2023). The Court therefore declines to allow Hyppolite to add the AFCPB as a
respondent pre-transfer.
The Court also disagrees with the Petitioner that a certificate of
appealability should issue. A denial of a habeas corpus petition is only
appealable upon a district court’s issuance of a certificate of appealability
where “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253. To meet this standard, a petitioner
must show that “reasonable jurists could debate whether |. . .] the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented
were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 335 (2003) (cleaned up). This is not a decision on the
merits of the habeas petition and does not implicate any alleged denial of
Petitioner’s constitutional rights—this order merely ensures that the court
considering the petition has jurisdiction at all. The Court therefore will not
issue a certificate of appealability.
4. Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, the Court partly adopts the Magistrate
Judge’s report and recommendations (ECF No. 35), denying without prejudice
Hyppolite’s petition for habeas corpus and transferring this case to the District
of Maryland with the understanding that Hyppolite will move to add the Air
Force Clemency and Parole Board as a respondent upon transfer. The Clerk
shall take all necessary steps to ensure the prompt transfer of this action to the
United States District Court for the District of Maryland.
Additionally, the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations
to dismiss the declaratory judgment and mandamus claims. No party objected
to these recommendations, and the Court does not find them to be clearly
erroneous.
Done and ordered, in Miami, Florida, on January 24, 2024.
(se N. Scola, Jr.
United States District Judge