United States District Court, E.D. Michigan, Southern Division
OPINION AND ORDER (1) DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (Dkt. 1) AS MOOT; (2) DECLINING TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY; AND (3) DENYING PERMISSION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS
MARK A. GOLDSMITH, District Judge.
Petitioner Aaron Ralph filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Dkt. 1). Petitioner was convicted in Montcalm County Circuit Court of one count of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and two counts of second-degree criminal sexual conduct. Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 750.520(B), (C). On September 18, 1998, Petitioner was sentenced to concurrent sentences of two-to-five years' imprisonment for the second-degree convictions, and 17-to-50 years' imprisonment for the first-degree conviction. The petition does not attack the validity of either Petitioner's convictions or sentence. Rather, the petition alleges that the Michigan Parole Board wrongfully altered the conditions of his term of parole. Petitioner has since been discharged from parole and, therefore, he has been discharged from his maximum sentence. For the reasons explained fully below, the Court dismisses the habeas petition as moot.
Petitioner was paroled in February 2013, for a period of 24 months. Various conditions were placed on his parole, including not engaging in any behavior that constitutes a violation of any criminal law, not engaging in any assaultive, abusive, threatening or intimidating behavior, and complying with Global Positioning System (GPS) monitoring and requirements.
In May 2014, Petitioner was charged with four counts of violating his parole. It was alleged that Petitioner failed to comply with his GPS agreement and engaged in behavior that was assaultive, abusive, threatening, and/or intimidating. After he was served with the parole violation charges, Petitioner waived his right to a preliminary parole violation hearing. Petitioner was found to have violated the rules of his parole. Despite recommendations that Petitioner be returned to prison and that his parole be revoked, the Parole Board ultimately decided to continue his parole, continue GPS monitoring, place him in a residential reentry program, and add a special condition to have "no contact" with the individuals who were the subject of the violation. Petitioner then successfully completed his parole term, and he was discharged on February 5, 2015.
Petitioner's habeas application was filed before his discharge. It challenges the proceedings resulting in the modification of his parole term:
i. "Petitioner is restrained of his liberty in violation of his 1st Amendment right to free speech and freedom of expression, "
ii. "Due process violation - abuse of process, "
iii. "Parole dep[artment] overreaching, "
iv. "Abuse of authority - process - discretion, " and
v. "Conspiracy to commit fraud."
Pet. at 5, 7, 10, ...