United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
A. WHITE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Petitioner's petition for a
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Dkt.
1). Petitioner, a pro se prisoner currently incarcerated at
Oklahoma State Penitentiary in McAlester, Oklahoma, alleges
that in 2014, 2015, and 2016, he was wrongfully denied parole
from his sentence in Oklahoma County District Court Case No.
CRF-95-1195. He claims the parole denials resulted from
retaliation for challenges to his criminal cases and for his
civil lawsuits, as well as discrimination and denial of equal
protection. Plaintiff also asserts he is subject to policies
and procedures that were not in place when he committed his
has filed an answer to the petition, alleging Petitioner has
served previous sentences, and on December 3, 2008, he
re-billed to serve his current 20-year sentence in Case No.
CRF-95-1195 (Dkt. 13-1 at 3). As of March 31, 2017, he had 2,
125 days to serve on his current sentence. Id. at 5.
He also has additional consecutive sentences to serve.
Id. at 1.
is no constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person
to be conditionally released before the expiration of a valid
sentence.” Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal
& Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). Furthermore,
both the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Oklahoma
Supreme Court have held that the Oklahoma parole statutes do
not create a liberty interest in early release. Shirley
v. Chestnut, 603 F.2d 805, 807 (10th Cir. 1979);
Shabazz v. Keating, 977 P.2d 1089, 1093 (Okla.
Petitioner's equal protection claim, the Court finds
Petitioner has provided no factual support for the legal
basis of this claim. He has not identified any
similarly-situated individual who has received different or
more beneficial treatment. Petitioner also has failed to show
that any difference in treatment was not related to a
legitimate penological purpose but was, instead, the result
of unlawful discrimination. “[B]are equal protection
claims are simply too conclusory to permit a proper legal
analysis.” Straley v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 582
F.3d 1208, 1215 (10th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted),
cert. denied, 559 U.S. 991 (2010). The Court,
therefore, finds Petitioner's equal protection claim must
fail. The Court further finds that Petitioner's
conclusory and unsupported discrimination claim is meritless.
alleges Petitioner has failed to exhaust the state judicial
remedies for his claims. “A threshold question that
must be addressed in every habeas case is that of
exhaustion.” Harris v. Champion, 15 F.3d 1538,
1554 (10th Cir. 1994). The Court must dismiss a state
prisoner's habeas petition if he has not exhausted the
available state court remedies as to his federal claims.
See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731 (1991).
In federal habeas corpus actions, the petitioner bears the
burden of showing he has exhausted his state court remedies
as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). See Clonce v.
Presley, 640 F.2d 271, 273 (10th Cir. 1981); Bond v.
Oklahoma, 546 F.2d 1369, 1377 (10th Cir. 1976). To
satisfy the exhaustion requirement, a claim must be presented
to the State's highest court through a direct appeal or a
post-conviction proceeding. Dever v. Kansas State
Penitentiary, 36 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1994). Under
the doctrine of comity, a federal court should defer action
on claims properly within its jurisdiction until a state
court with concurrent power has had an opportunity to
consider the matter. Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509,
518-19 (1982). “A habeas petitioner is generally
required to exhaust state remedies whether his action is
brought under § 2241 or § 2254.” Montez
v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 866 (10th Cir. 2000) (citing
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731)).
the Court finds Petitioner has failed to show he has made any
attempt to adjudicate his claim in the state courts.
Respondent avers he has searched the state court records and
has found no evidence of litigation regarding
Petitioner's issues in this action (Dkt. 13-2).
Therefore, the Court finds Petitioner has failed to exhaust
the state court remedies for his habeas claims.
Court further concludes Petitioner has not shown “at
least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether
the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether [this] court was correct in its procedural
ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000). See also 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c).
Therefore, Petitioner is denied a certificate of
Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus (Dkt.
1) is DENIED, and this action is, in all respects DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Furthermore, ...