Judge Orders Government to Justify Continued Detention

Special designated Federal Judge Christopher C. Conner, visiting from Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, directed the Government, on April 28, 2005, to justify Keith Maydak's continued detention. Judge Conner directed a response to the following petition by May 18, 2005. He also added the Warden of the privately-owned Corrections Corporation of America (ticker CXW) Northeast Ohio Correctional Center as a party. The case is docketed at 05cv388 in the Pittsburgh Federal Court. Judge Conner was appointed to handle the case by the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Anthony J. Scirica. Here is a copy of the Emergency Petition for Habeas Corpus under 05cv388.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA


KEITH MAYDAK, )
)
Petitioner, )
)
)
v. ) related to 93cr133
)
WARDEN, ALLEGHENY COUNTY JAIL; )
UNITED STATES MARSHAL; and )
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, )
)
Respondents. )
)


PETITION PURSUANT TO 28 USC 2241 FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner, Keith Maydak (“Maydak”), requests that this Court enter a Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2241:
parties
1. The petitioner is Keith Maydak. Maydak is presently detained at the Allegheny County Jail in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
2. The first respondent is the Warden of the Allegheny County Jail. Respondent Warden maintains custody, albeit unlawfully, over Maydak.
3. The second respondent is the United States Marshal for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Respondent United States Marshal lodged Maydak into the Allegheny County Jail without a judicial detention order. Respondent United States Marshal created a document entitled “detainer” and advised Respondent Warden that it constituted the basis for Maydak’s detention.
4. The third respondent is the United States Attorney. Respondent United States Attorney, through her agent, Paul Hull, caused the continued detention of Maydak by instructing Respondent United States Marshal to keep Maydak lodged in the Allegheny County Jail. On November 16, 2004, Respondent United States Attorney claimed that Maydak’s detention existed because he could not be “trusted” to appear for Court on a supervised release revocation hearing. However, Respondent United States Attorney neither sought nor received a detention order from a judicial officer.
background
5. On September 27, 2001, the Clerk of the United States District Court issued an arrest warrant that did not comply with the requirements and specifications of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 4. The warrant purportedly allowed Respondent United States Marshal to arrest Maydak and bring him in front of a judicial officer.
6. On or about October 16, 2002, Respondent United States Attorney lodged a request to Canada for Maydak’s detention and extradition.
7. On November 4, 2002, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police arrested Maydak as a result of the September 27, 2001 arrest warrant.
8. At the time of Maydak’s arrest at the request of Respondent United States Attorney, he was already detained on a Canadian immigration detention order. However, on November 7, 2002, Maydak prevailed on the immigration matter. From that point on, Maydak’s official detention resulted solely from the extradition request relating to the September 27, 2001, arrest warrant. No further immigration detention orders were issued. On the contrary, Maydak received a conditional departure order that provided him thirty days to leave Canada upon any denial of his claim for protection under the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
9. In December, 2002, Respondent United States Attorney formalized the extradition request and added a request related to the purported Contempt of Court Indictment docketed at 02-cr-269 (WDPA).
10. On April 30, 2003, the Canadian judiciary discharged Maydak with respect to the contempt of court matter, but committed him for extradition with respect to the completion of the supervised release.
11. On November 18, 2003, the Canadian Minister of Justice ordered Maydak surrendered to the United States for the completion of the supervised release. The Minister of Justice did not surrender Maydak for any further prosecution.
12. On September 22, 2004, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed the surrender order and made it clear that the terms prohibited the prosecution of any other matter.
13. On October 29, 2004, members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police surrendered Maydak to the United States Marshals Service. During the surrender process, Maydak requested that Respondent United States Marshal identify the basis for his detention. The agents of Respondent United States Marshal declined to identify the basis for Maydak’s detention. In fact, the agents neither notified Maydak that he was under arrest nor provided him with any information pertaining to his rights as a detained person.
14. On October 30, 2004, the agents of Respondent United States Marshal lodged Maydak in the Allegheny County Jail. The agents provided Respondent Warden with a document entitled “detainer.”
15. The respondents failed to take Maydak in front of a judicial officer on November 1, 2004.
16. On November 2, 2004, United States District Judge Alan Bloch, presumably assuming that the Government would comply with the initial appearance requirements, scheduled a final revocation hearing for December 16, 2004. Judge Bloch did not issue any order allowing the respondents to detain Maydak.
17. On November 10, 2004, Respondent United States Attorney filed a motion to dismiss the contempt proceeding.
18. On November 16, 2004, Respondent United States Attorney stated in a memorandum that Maydak was detained because he could not be “trusted” to appear for any hearing.
legal standards
19. “[A] probationer, like a parolee, is entitled to a preliminary and a final revocation hearing” to comport with due process. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 US 778 (1973).
20. Pretrial detention requires a “timely judicial determination” of probable cause before or promptly after arrest. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 US 103, 125-126 (1975). A preliminary hearing is required “promptly after a parole violators arrest.” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 US 471 (1972).
21. A person held in custody for violating probation or supervised release must be taken without unnecessary delay before a magistrate judge. F.R. Cr. P. 32.1 (a)(1).
22. The magistrate judge must inform the person of the following: (A) the alleged violation of probation or supervised release; (B) the person’s right to retain counsel; and (C) the person’s right, if held in custody, to a preliminary hearing. F.R. Cr. P. 32.1 (a)(3).
23. The magistrate judge may release or detain the person under 18 USC 3143 (a) pending further proceedings. F. R. Cr. P. 32.1 (a)(6).
24. If a person is in custody for violating a condition of probation or supervised release, a magistrate judge must promptly conduct a hearing to determine whether there is probable cause to believe that a violation occurred. F.R.Cr. P. 32.1 (b)(1)(A).
25. The court may... revoke a term of supervised release, and require the person to serve in prison all or part of the term of supervised release... , except that a person whose term is revoked under this paragraph may not be required to serve more than... 2 years in prison if the offense was a Class C or D felony. 18 USC 3583 (e)(3).
26. A person shall receive credit for the time spent in official detention that has not been credited against another sentence. 18 USC 3585 (b).
due process violations
27. By causing Maydak to be continuously detained without an initial appearance or judicial order, the respondents deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
28. By failing to provide Maydak a bail hearing as required by law, the respondents deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
29. By failing to provide Maydak a preliminary hearing as required by law, the respondents deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
30. By causing Maydak to be detained in excess of the maximum statutory penalty, the respondents deprived Maydak of liberty without due process.
prejudice
31. In the present case, the detention without a hearing prejudiced Maydak since he has been detained in excess of the maximum potential term of imprisonment.
32. The detention without a hearing prejudiced Maydak since the District Court lacks jurisdiction to proceed with the final revocation hearing on December 16, 2004, since no preliminary hearing occurred.
33. The detention without a hearing prejudiced Maydak since the combination of procedural irregularities has affected the fairness of the underlying revocation proceeding.
34. The detention without a hearing prejudiced Maydak because the conduct of the respondents is aggravated and intentional as demonstrated by the Government’s admission on November 16, 2004, that it detained Maydak because he cannot be “trusted” to appear notwithstanding the fact that he faces no further lawful detention after revocation of supervised release.
WHEREFORE, based on the above, Petitioner Keith Maydak respectfully demands that this Court issue a writ of habeas corpus discharging him from the custody of the respondents and dismissing the revocation proceeding for prejudicial violations of due process.



Respectfully Submitted,
­­_____________________________
Keith Maydak



PETITIONER




DECLARATION OF KEITH MAYDAK

I, Keith Maydak, declare under the penalty for perjury that the allegations contained in the foregoing Petition For Writ of Habeas Corpus are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. 28 USC 1746.

______________________________ Keith Maydak

CCA (ticker CXW) Finally Provides Food

Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA") (ticker CXW), after 24 written requests, finally provided vegan meals to Keith Maydak. CCA allowed Maydak to go without food or meals from the morning of Friday, April 22, 2005, until the evening meal on Thursday, April 28, 2005.

Unlawfully confined detainee petitions Ohio federal magistrate for hearing

Keith Maydak, who has been detained since September 29, 2002 for a "supervised release violation," that carries a maximum term of two years in jail, petitioned an Ohio Federal Court today for a hearing. Specifically, Maydak has been detained seven months past his potential period of incarceration, but United States District Judge Alan Bloch of the Western District of Pennsylvania refuses to hold a final hearing. On April 22, 2005, Corrections Corporation of America officers picked Maydak up from Pittsburgh and moved him to Ohio. This gave him the opportunity to file a petition to a Ohio Federal Magistrate. See letter below:


Keith Maydak, # 04904-068
CCA NEOCC
2240 Hubbard Road
Youngstown, OH 44505

April 27, 2005

Magistrate Judge George J. Limbert
United States Magistrate Judge
Northern District of Ohio
229 Thomas D. Lambros Federal Building & United States Court House
125 Market Street
Youngstown, Ohio 44503-1787

In re: United States v. Maydak, 93cr133 (WDPA)

Dear Magistrate Judge Limbert:

Pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 32.1, I am requesting that you schedule a bail hearing as I am in this district and I object to any transfer back to the Western District of Pennsylvania. As shown below, I am entitled to an immediate detention hearing.

Specifically, in September, 2001, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued an arrest warrant that merely said “failure to appear” as the offense. However, the matter related to a supervised release violation. On September 29, 2002, I was arrested in Canada and the United States requested my extradition. After litigation wherein the United States admitted I would receive credit for all of my detention in Canada, I was returned to the Western District of Pennsylvania on October 30, 2004 – but the maximum sentence is two years for the violation. 18 USC §3583(e)(3).
Although the arrest warrant directed the U.S. Marshals to take me in front of a judge, they did not. As such, I filed objections in the 93cr133 (WDPA) case objecting to the Failure to Comply with Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 32.1. I also filed a habeas corpus at Maydak v. Warden, Allegheny County Jail, 04cv1818 (WDPA)[1] because no detention order exists and the Rule 32.1 violations are prejudicial since I served the maximum sentence.

On December 16, 2004, the 93cr133 (WDPA) court held a supervised release revocation hearing at which I stated through counsel that I did not wish to contest the matter except for my objections filed about Rule 32.1. The district court ordered a Presentence Report and scheduled my sentencing for March 7, 2005. The district court refused to discuss detention at all. No bail order was held and no detention order was issued.

On March 4, 2005, the district court claimed that it lacked jurisdiction to either sentence me or release me because I filed a habeas corpus appeal relating to a previous habeas that I filed while in Canada.

On April 21, 2005, the United States Marshals Service directed Corrections Corporation of America to lodge me at the above address. As such, I am now in the jurisdiction of your court and I am entitled to the bail hearing in front of a magistrate judge as mandated by Fed.R.Crim.Proc. 32.1. I also object to any transfer back to the Western District of Pennsylvania since I will demonstrate that my custody is unlawful because I have spent seven months over my statutory maximum prospective sentence pursuant to 18 USC §3583(e)(3) and because my term of supervised release expired by virtue of the plain language of 18 USC §3624(e).

Based on the above, I request a prompt detention hearing and a transfer hearing where I can present evidence and arguments demonstrating that I should not be transferred back to the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Respectfully submitted,


Keith Maydak







cc: Clerk of Court, Northern District of Ohio
United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio

[1] The Judge apparently refuses to rule on the 04cv1818 (WDPA) habeas. I also filed a second habeas at 05cv388 (WDPA) about my detention, but Chief Judge Donetta Ambrose petitioned the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to move it to another district.

Corrections Corporation of America (ticker CXW) ignores requests for religious vegan diet

On Friday April 22, 2005, Keith Maydak was transferred into the custody of Corrections Corporation of America ("CCA")(NYSE: CWX). He immediately requested vegan meals for religious and allergy reasons. The inmate handbook states, "request for a religious diet or no meat alternate must be submitted to the Chaplain. This request must include religious preference and dietary needs." Nevertheless, CCA has refused to provide Maydak with the requested vegan meal. The following text is a FAX MEMO sent to the warden:

FAX MEMO

DATE: April 26, 2005

FROM: Keith Maydak, # 04904-068

TO: Robert Tapia, Warden via facsimile 1.330.746.3318

cc: CCA Corporate Headquarters via facsimile 1.615.263.3140

RE: Not fed since arrival on April 22, 2005


Since arrival on April 22, 2005, CCA has failed to provide me vegan meals which I can accept. Both medical and chaplain staff ignored my requests: my requests, complaints, and sick call slips. The officers have been calling, but nobody will respond. The food service manager states that she can provide the meals easily, but is not allowed to do so until somebody approves it. I already have ongoing litigation about this, and I would prefer not to add CCA as a party. The attached injunction demonstrates my meal requirements, to wit, no milk, no egg, and no animal flesh. In addition, a simple Google search will reveal that I cannot accept animal products (search for Maydak and vegan).

I trust you will look into this matter without the need for further correspondence. If I do not receive an acknowledgement, I will assume you did not receive this communication and my paralegal will send it again.

Maydak

More information coming soon...