United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
SUZANNE MITCHEL UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Clark (Petitioner), a state prisoner appearing pro se, brings
this action for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
See Doc. 1. United States District Judge Timothy D.
DeGiusti has referred the matter to the undersigned
Magistrate Judge for proceedings consistent with 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1)(B), (C). See Doc. 5.
following reasons, “it plainly appears from the
petition and . . . attached exhibits that [P]etitioner is not
entitled to relief, ” and the undersigned recommends
summary dismissal of the petition without prejudice to
refiling. Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the
United States District Courts.
The decision Petitioner challenges in this Court.
prompted in his form petition to supply information about the
decision or action he is challenging, Petitioner details his
unsuccessful request for habeas relief in Oklahoma state
district court where he raised the following issues:
Legislature intent for a type of parole consideration that
had been abolished the Parole Board must make rules to
determine the sentence of 18-60 years [Petitioner] would have
received under the appropriate matrix and failure to do so
required immediate release because [Petitioner] has been
imprisoned past the minimum sentence of 18 years established
by statute violated due process guaranteed by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Doc. 1, at 2-3. Petitioner indicates that his challenge is
also to the determination by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal
Appeals that his “appeal d[id] not cite controlling
authority supporting . . . his claim that Legislature has
tasked the Parole Board with mandated release dates for
inmates eligible for parole consideration.”
Id. at 2.
Basis for Petitioner's challenge.
single “ground (reason) t[o] support[ his] claim that
[he is] being held in violation of the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States, ” Petitioner alleges
that “[t]he Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board deprived
[him] of the substantive predicate of State law which created
a liberty and property interest protected by the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
Id. at 7.
Petitioner's supporting facts.
advises that he “was sentenced for a crime committed
January 6, 1975 pursuant to the statute abolished by
Legislature.” Id. He submits (1) the
“Oklahoma statute governing the Pardon and Parole
Board's procedures were specific for a crime committed
prior to July 1, 1998”; (2) “a person being
considered for parole created for a type of parole
consideration that has been abolished by Legislature shall be
considered for parole except according to the current Pardon
and Parole provisions”; and (3) “the Pardon and
Parole Board shall promulgate rules and procedures for
determining what sentence a person eligible for parole
consideration after serving one-third (1/3) of his sentence,
would have received under the applicable 18-60 year sentence
matrix.” Id. Petitioner submits that he
“has been in prison past the minimum requirement of 18
years imprisonment” and “[f]or no reason the
Pardon and Parole Board terminated [his] begotten rights to
his eligibility-for-parole before meeting the specified
outcoming of the mandatory language in the statute.”
Petitioner's requested relief.
relief from the alleged constitutional deprivation,
Petitioner asks ...