Sheikh Mohammed Bey, the Moor, Also Known as Randy Thornton v. J.B. Bogan
Docket: 93-2483
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; May 4, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
Sheikh Mohammed Bey, also known as Randy Thornton, appeals a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241. He is serving a 40-year sentence for bank robbery, with a complicated parole history involving multiple violations. After being first paroled in 1984, his parole was revoked in 1989, and he was reparoled in 1990 but violated again shortly thereafter. During this period, Bey cooperated with local authorities in a criminal investigation related to the Moorish Science Temple but faced a parole revocation hearing that did not consider this evidence. The Parole Commission later held additional proceedings and scheduled his next reconsideration hearing for 2007. In his habeas petition, Bey raises several claims: (1) the evidence reopening his case was not "new" as defined by law; (2) the evidence used for his parole revocation was obtained under duress; (3) local authorities and the Parole Commission colluded to violate his due process rights; and (4) he was entitled to a local revocation hearing rather than one held at the FCI facility in Milan. A magistrate judge recommended denial of his petition, a recommendation adopted by the district court. Bey's case was reviewed again by the Parole Commission, leading to a new revocation hearing in March 1993, which resulted in a decision granting him credit for time spent on parole and pushing his next reconsideration hearing to 2005. On appeal, Bey argues that due process was denied due to collusion among authorities and asserts that he was misled about the nature of the revocation hearing, which he claims was merely a "formality." He also contends he was denied adequate legal representation during the proceedings. The court's review of the Parole Commission's decisions is limited to assessing whether a rational basis underlies its conclusions, without authority to evaluate substantive parole decisions or the Commission's factual findings and credibility assessments. In habeas cases, federal court review is confined to constitutional or legal challenges to the Commission's actions. A federal prisoner must exhaust all state remedies before filing a Section 2241 petition, though the court declined to dismiss Bey's case for lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. After reviewing the merits, the court found Bey's allegations of conspiracy and due process violations to be unsupported and conclusory, failing to meet the burden required for habeas relief. Furthermore, Bey did not demonstrate that his counsel's performance in the revocation hearing was constitutionally inadequate or prejudiced his defense. Consequently, the court affirmed the district court's denial of Bey's habeas corpus petition.