Norwood v. U.S. Parole Comm�n

── Norwood v. U.S. Parole Comm�n ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 13, 2026 Category: General 24-2650-cv Norwood v. U.S. Parole Comm’n UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 13th day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: EUNICE C. LEE, BETH ROBINSON, Circuit Judges, ERIC R. KOMITEE, District Judge. * _____________________________________ Michael Norwood, Petitioner-Appellant, v. 24-2650 United States Parole Commission, Respondent-Appellee. _____________________________________ FOR PETITIONER-APPELLANT: Michael Norwood, pro se, Danbury, CT. * Eric R. Komitee, of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, sitting by designation. FOR RESPONDENT-APPELLEE: John W. Larson, Elena Lalli Coronado, Assistant United States Attorneys, for David X. Sullivan, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, New Haven, CT. Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut (Bolden, J.). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the matter is REMANDED for further proceedings. Michael Norwood, proceeding pro se, appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his petition for a writ of mandamus and order denying his motion for reconsideration. In 2023, Norwood moved for mandamus relief, alleging that the United States Parole Commission had issued a detainer in violation of the notice provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 4214(b)(1). The Commission responded that it had properly afforded Norwood notice of the dispositional review and informed him of his rights, in compliance with section 4214(b)(1). The district court denied mandamus relief, concluding that section 4214(b)(1) did not require that the Commission send the requisite notice to Norwood by certified mail or otherwise attempt to contact him to confirm his waiver of his rights. The district court also denied Norwood’s Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. Norwood v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, No. 23-cv-411, 2024 WL 3912688 (D. Conn. Aug. 23, 2024). We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, the procedural history of the case, and the issues on appeal. 2  As relevant here, section 4214(b)(1) provides that when a dispositional review of a detainer is pending, “[t]he parolee shall receive not