Maier v. Kirkegard et al
Filing
7
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5 in full. The Petition is DENIED on the merits, and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 6/7/2012. Mailed to Maier. (TAG, )
FILED
JUN 072012
PATRICK E. DUFFY ,... e _
a"
.~
DB>\i!Y CtER!(, Y$S()ju,
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
HELENA DIVISION
LLOYD SCOTT MAIER,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Petitioner,
vs.
LEROY KIRKEGARD; ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MONTANA,
CV 12-22-H-DLC-RKS
ORDER
)
)
)
Respondents.
)
-----------------------)
Petitioner Maier, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed a Petition for a
Writ of Habeas Corpus under 28 U.S.c. § 2254 alleging that his continued
confinement violates due process. Petitioner argues that his 1996 sentence was
based in part on the erroneous consideration of a prior juvenile conviction against
him in violation of his due process rights. As a separate basis for relief. Petitioner
·1·
claims he was deprived of due process in clemency proceedings in 2005 and 2010
because (1) the board considered a psychological report containing allegedly false
information and (2) Petitioner was not allowed to call witnesses or present
evidence to dispute the many disciplinary write-ups he incurred while in the
maximum security unit.
United States Magistrate Judge Keith Strong conducted preliminary
screening of the Petition as required by Rule 4 ofthe Rules Governing Section
2254 cases in the United States District Courts. Under Rule 4, the Petition must
be summarily dismissed "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and
any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the District
Court." If summary dismissal is not warranted, the judge must order the
respondent to file an answer, motion, or other response or to take some other
action as ordered by the judge.
Judge Strong issued Findings and Recommendations in which he concludes
that the Petition should be denied on the merits. With respect to the claim that his
1996 sentence violated due process, Judge Strong notes that Petitioner has filed at
least three habeas petitions in the District challenging that conviction, including at
least one setting forth this precise argument. Because this claim is therefore a
second or successive habeas corpus application, Judge Strong concludes it must be
dismissed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(l).
-2
As to the claim related to denial of Petitioner's clemency applications,
Judge Strong observes that an identical claim was recently presented-and
denied-in a habeas petition in the Montana Supreme Court. In denying the state
petition, the Montana Supreme Court held that Maier failed to meet his burden to
make a prima facie showing that the information used against him in the clemency
proceedings was false. Order at 4, Maier v. Kirkegard, No. OP 12-0042 (Mont.
Feb. 21, 2012) (Pet. Ex. A). Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d),
[a]n application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in
custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted
with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State
court proceedings unless the adjudication of the c1aim-
(l) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as
determined by the Supreme Court of the United States; or
(2) resulted in a decision that was based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts in light ofthe evidence presented in
the State court proceeding.
Judge Strong considered the Montana Supreme Court's Order and determined that
it was not contrary to federal law and was not based on an unreasonable
determination of the facts. On that basis, he concludes that habeas relief is not
available to Petitioner Maier under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, and the Petition should be
denied. Judge Strong also recommends denial of a certificate of appealability.
Petitioner Maier timely objected, thereby preserving his right to de novo
review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In his objections, Maier argues that
-3
he will only have a fair opportunity to succeed on his Petition ifhe is appointed
counsel and allowed to present evidence at a hearing. Maier's objections do not
address the legal basis for Judge Strong's Findings and Recommendations. Judge
Strong does not recommend denial of the Petition on the grounds that it will fail
on the merits, but rather because each claim is procedurally barred. Although
Petitioner complains that procedural bars will prevent him from ever presenting
his claims, his litigation history tells a different story. Petitioner has already
presented these claims in both state and federal forums. He is now barred from
bringing them again under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Upon de novo review, I agree with Judge Strong's Findings and
Recommendations (Doc. No.5) and therefore adopt them in full.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Petition is DENIED on
the merits, and a certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is
directed to enter by separate document a judgment in favor of Respondents and
against Petitioner Maier.
:l'k
DATED this -=t day of June, 2012.
n"""
L~~'t
United States District Court
·4·
ludg'
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?