Overview

On August 6, 2002, a Joint Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was submitted to the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, Case No. 1:02CV1629 (RJL). This appeal concerns the unconstitutional application of the Sentencing Reform Act (under which prisoners sentenced "under the old system" were to be issued release dates no later than October 1989) by the U.S. Parole Commission.

The Sentencing Reform Act (SRA) was passed to address what Congress thought were inconsistent sentences imposed by different judges on different individuals convicted of the same crimes, as well as arbitrary parole decisions. A new system —one of determinate sentences—was born and the Parole Commission was abolished.

At the heart of this appeal is the refusal of the government to enforce Title II, Chapter II, Section 235(b)(3) of the SRA. Effective on October 12, 1984, this part of the law ordered that parole dates "consistent with the applicable parole guideline" be issued to all "old system" prisoners within the following five-year period, at the end of which time (on October 11, 1989) the Commission would cease to exist. 

On December 7, 1987, Congress enacted Public Law 100-182 which amended the SRA; repealed, in Section 2, the release criteria established by the original section 235(b)(3); and restored the release criteria under 18 U.S.C. 4206. This amendment did not restore the Parole Commission or remove its obligation to establish mandatory release dates, with sufficient time for appeal, by October 11, 1989. These changes to the law also applied only to crimes committed after the law was amended on December 7, 1987. The amendment simply did not apply to Leonard Peltier or to the some 6,000 other "old system" prisoners still held by the U.S. Bureau of Prisons today.

After it had technically ceased to exist, the Parole Commission claimed it needed more time to complete its work. Congress inexplicably granted a number of after-the-fact extensions, the first in 1990 and the latest in 2002. The appeal claims these extensions were legally invalid and therefore inapplicable because, at the time they were made, the Parole Commission had already been abolished.  

Leonard Peltier should have been given his release date by October 11, 1989, minus sufficient time to exhaust appeals. Had the Parole Commission followed the congressional mandate, Peltier would have been released over 12 years ago. Lacking in any statutory authority, the U.S. Parole Commission in fact illegally extended Peltier's term of imprisonment. The failure of the Parole Commission to give a certain release date to Peltier violated the ex post facto, Bill of Attainder, and Due Process clauses of the U.S. Constitution.

Case Files

• A Reply Brief Regarding the Government's Motion to Transfer Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus to the U.S. District Court in the District of Kansas was filed on February 20, 2004 (Word).

• March 2004.  The U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia granted the government's Motion to Transfer.

• A Motion to Summarily Proceed on the Petition for Habeas Corpus was filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas on March 3, 2005 (Word).

• On April 7, 2005, the Plaintiffs filed a Petition for Leave to File a Brief to assist the Court in summarily deciding their Petition for Habeas Corpus and to establish bail (Word).

• The Plaintiffs filed a Brief to Assist the Court in summarily deciding their Petition for Habeas Corpus and to establish bail on April 7, 2005 (Word).

• On April 11, 2005, the Petitioners filed in opposition to the government's request to show cause and for a 60-day extension (Word).

• On April 25, 2005, the Petitioners filed a Motion for Leave to Submit a Supplemental Memorandum (Word).

• The Petitioners filed a Supplemental Memorandum on April 25, 2005, in support of their opposition to the the government's request to show cause and for a 60-day extension (Word).

• On August 28, 2006, the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus was denied. 

• On January 3, 2007, an appeal was filed with the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. On March 27, 2009, the appeal was denied by the Court.