The opinion
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
DAVID CARMICHAEL, )
)
Petitioner, ) Civil Action No. 3:24-cv-202
)
v. )
) Magistrate Judge Patricia L. Dodge
UNITED STATES PAROLE )
COMMISSION, )
)
Respondent. )
MEMORANDUM
Pending before the Court1 is the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 9) filed by
David Carmichael (“Petitioner”), an inmate at the State Correctional Institution at Somerset,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.2 For the reasons below, the Court will dismiss the petition.
I. Introduction
In the District of Columbia, Petitioner was sentenced to an aggregate term of 55 years for
robbery and related charges. In 2021, he was granted parole by the United States Parole
Commission (“USPC”) on this sentence.
In 2022, Petitioner was arrested in Virginia for attempted robbery and assault. At this time,
he was on parole from both his District of Columbia sentence and from a sentence for robbery
convictions in the Court of Common Pleas of York County, Pennsylvania.
1 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), the parties voluntarily consented to have a United States
Magistrate Judge conduct proceedings in this case, including entry of a final judgment.
2 Although Petitioner styled the petition as one for a writ of mandamus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, the Court has
construed the petition as one seeking a writ of habeas corpus challenging the validity of his future custody. (ECF No.
4.)
He was convicted of the Virginia crimes on January 30, 2023, and sentenced on May 5,
2023, to an aggregate term of three years. All but nine months of this sentence was suspended, and
he was released.
On October 12, 2023, the Pennsylvania Parole Board ordered Petitioner to serve a
recommitment period on his Pennsylvania sentence based on the Virginia conviction.
On January 23, 2024, the USPC issued a parole violation warrant for Petitioner based on
the Virginia conviction. The USPC sent the warrant to the U.S. Marshals Service with instructions
to place a detainer if Petitioner was already in custody. Indeed, Petitioner was in custody at SCI
Somerset.
On February 22, 2024, Petitioner wrote to the USPC with a request to review and dispose
of the detainer. On February 21, 2025, the USPC issued a decision to let the detainer stand.
Petitioner lodged the instant petition on August 22, 2024. (ECF No. 9 at 4.) Therein, he
asserts that the detainer issued by the USPC was not timely issued and must be dismissed.
Respondent filed an Answer. (ECF No. 15.) Petitioner did not file a Reply. The Petition is
ripe for consideration.
II. Discussion
In order to obtain habeas relief, Petitioner has the burden of demonstrating that he “is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
In his petition, Petitioner asserts that the USPC was required but failed to act to revoke his
parole within 120 days of receiving notice of his 2023 conviction. In support of this assertion, he
cites only to a United States Supreme Court case, Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), which
held that a parolee is entitled to procedural due process in the revocation of his parole, but which
did not set any 120-day deadline for any part of the process. Instead, the Morrissey Court held that
a revocation hearing must be tendered within a reasonable time after the parolee is taken into
custody. Id. at 488. Petitioner has not been taken into custody by the USPC and, as the Supreme
Court explained in Moody v. Daggett, 429 U.S. 78 (1976), in a follow-up to Morrissey, due process
does not require a revocation hearing until the parolee is taken into custody. In a situation like
Petitioner’s, the Moody Court held it is appropriate that such hearing be held at the expiration of
the parolee’s intervening sentence. Id. at 89. In this case, that time would be after the Pennsylvania
Parole Board has released Petitioner and he has been taken into custody on the USPC’s retainer.
Therefore, Petitioner has failed to show a due process violation requiring the dismissal of
the USPC’s retainer.
III. Conclusion
Based on the above, the Court will dismiss the petition.
An appropriate Order follows.
Date: February 13, 2026 /s/ Patricia L. Dodge
PATRICIA L. DODGE
United States Magistrate Judge