United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Kenneth M. Hoyt United States District Judge.
petitioner, Damon Jerome Richardson, seeks a writ of habeas
corpus challenging The Board of Pardons and Paroles'
[“Board”] denial of his release. The respondent
has filed a motion for summary judgement, arguing that the
petitioner is not entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.
The petitioner has not filed a response at this time. After
considering the petition, the motion, and the arguments and
authorities submitted, the Court determines that the
respondent's motion for summary judgement should be
treated as a motion to dismiss and, therefore, dismiss the
petitioner's writ without prejudice.
awaiting trial on a criminal charge, the petitioner was
placed under surveillance in connection with a drug operation
that he managed. The investigation resulted in the seizure of
approximately three kilograms of cocaine as well as over
$225, 000.00. The petitioner pled not guilty to the offense
charged and proceeded to trial on August 27, 1990. A jury
found the petitioner guilty of engaging in organized criminal
activity. On August 31, 1990, the petitioner was sentenced to
life imprisonment in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice
(“TDCJ”) and was fined $10, 000.00. In his
federal writ for habeas corpus, the petitioner challenges
only the denial of parole on the underlying conviction.
September of 2015, the Board granted the petitioner a status
which status would allow the petitioner a future parole
release date. On February 17, 2016, the Board withdrew that
status based on substance abuse, a finding that the
petitioner was predisposed to commit future criminal acts and
other new information. Two months later, the petitioner filed
a federal writ of habeas corpus challenging the Board's
decision. The record reflects that the petitioner has yet to
challenge the Board's decision through a state writ of
petitioner's federal writ challenges the Board's
decision concerning his parole release status. In this
regard, the petitioner argues that he is entitled to habeas
relief for the following reasons:
1) The parole system is arbitrary and capricious because
letters and petitions provided by victims, prosecutors, law
enforcement personnel and the general public opposing the
petitioner's parole contain inaccurate information about
his background or circumstances of his offense, and bear no
relationship to the likelihood of harm to the public and the
likelihood of a favorable parole outcome.
2) The acceptance and consideration of protest letters when
making a parole determination is a violation of Equal
3) The Board violated his rights when it considered
unadjudicated offenses or offenses extraneous to his
Accordingly, the petitioner requests that his parole status
be reinstated so that he may be released on parole.