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
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
posted by maydak at Friday, April 29, 2005
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home