Robert Michael Hanahan, Cross-Appellee v. Dennis M. Luther, Warden, Chicago Metropolitan Correctional Center, and William Pilcher, Chief Probation Officer, Northern District of Illinois, Respondents- Cross-Appellants

Citation: 760 F.2d 148Docket: 84-1095

Court: Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit; April 18, 1985; Federal Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Petitioner Robert Michael Hanahan appealed the district court's rulings regarding credit against his sentence for time spent on court-ordered bail following his parole revocation. The court determined he was not entitled to credit for the period after the revocation but was entitled to credit for the time before. The United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, found that the district court lacked jurisdiction in the case and vacated its judgment.

Hanahan was convicted of bank robbery and related offenses in 1969, sentenced to 15 years, and paroled on November 17, 1975. He was later apprehended on December 3, 1979, after leading police on a high-speed chase, during which firearms and burglary tools were discovered in his vehicle. The United States Parole Commission issued a warrant for his arrest on December 17, 1979, citing multiple parole violations. 

After being taken into custody on December 18, Hanahan filed a habeas corpus petition on December 26, challenging his lengthy confinement without a hearing, and sought release pending a revocation hearing. He was granted release on a $20,000 bond. Following a revocation hearing on April 29, 1980, and a subsequent hearing on August 18, 1980, the Parole Commission officially revoked his parole on September 10, 1980. This decision was upheld through various administrative reviews, and Hanahan continued to file motions for bail and to challenge the revocation on statutory and constitutional grounds, culminating in an amended petition filed on February 3, 1981.

On July 2, 1981, the district court denied Hanahan's petition, granting his motion to allow the existing bond to serve as an appeal bond while denying the government's motion to remand him to the Attorney General's custody. The court's decision was upheld by the Seventh Circuit on August 27, 1982, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on January 24, 1983. Following the government's successful motion on October 1, 1982, Hanahan was remanded to custody and transferred to the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana. 

On February 7, 1983, the Parole Commission set a presumptive reparole date of October 18, 1984, crediting Hanahan for time spent on parole. However, the period from December 27, 1979, to October 17, 1982, when he was free on bail, was deemed inoperative time. Hanahan filed a motion on September 19, 1983, seeking sentence credit for the time spent on bail, which the district court partially granted on December 12, 1983, allowing credit only from December 27, 1979, to September 10, 1980, while denying it for the period thereafter. Hanahan appealed this decision, while the respondents cross-appealed, asserting that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Hanahan's motion since his original habeas corpus action had been dismissed and closed. 

The respondents argued that Hanahan's motion was improperly filed under the original case number and did not assert a basis for jurisdiction, as it effectively challenged the recomputation of his sentence. Hanahan contended he sought clarification on the bail order, but the court found this argument lacking, emphasizing that the legal question regarding sentence credit should not hinge on an unambiguous bail order. The district court ultimately considered the legal implications of whether parolees pending revocation hearing or those whose parole had been revoked but remained free on bail were entitled to sentence credit for the time spent on bail.

Hanahan was required to submit a new petition for a writ of habeas corpus to contest the administrative recomputation of his sentence after his parole was revoked. His initial motion, mischaracterized as a petition by the district court, did not identify the correct respondent, which should have been the warden of the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana, as he was not under the custody of MCC or the U.S. Probation and Parole Office at the time. While the district court could have potentially substituted the correct custodian, it did not possess personal jurisdiction over him, as per 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241(a). The court can issue a writ if the custodian can be served, regardless of the prisoner's location. Consequently, the district court lacked jurisdiction to grant Hanahan credit for time spent on bail prior to his parole revocation, as its jurisdiction over the original habeas corpus action had ended. The motion did not qualify as a request for clarification and was, therefore, treated as a new, defective petition. Although the court may have had personal jurisdiction over Luther and Pilcher, they were not the appropriate custodians, leading to the dismissal of the petition. The district court's judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for dismissal. Additionally, there is a dispute regarding Hanahan's supervision while on bail, with conflicting views between a probation officer and the Parole Commission about whether supervision was mandated during that time.

The administrative decision to continue supervising Hanahan while he was on bail required clarification, not the district court's bail order. Hanahan needed to file a new petition for a writ of habeas corpus to challenge the administrative recomputation of his sentence following parole revocation. His previous motion, incorrectly referred to as a petition, did not name the proper respondent—the warden of the United States Penitentiary at Terre Haute, Indiana—resulting in a lack of personal jurisdiction over him. Luther and Pilcher, named in the motion, were not involved in Hanahan's custody at that time. The jurisdictional statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241a, mandates that the court issuing the writ must have jurisdiction over the custodian. The district court lacked jurisdiction to grant Hanahan credit for time spent on bail before parole revocation, as his motion could not be treated as a clarification of a prior order but rather as a new and defective habeas corpus petition. Consequently, the district court's judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to dismiss the petition. The dispute involves Hanahan's supervision, with differing views between a U.S. Probation officer and the Parole Commission regarding the conditions of his supervision while on bail.