Matthies v. Houston

Filing 28

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS ORDERED that petitioner's "Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment" (Filing No. 27 ) is denied. Ordered by Senior Judge Lyle E. Strom. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
GREGORY M. MATTHIES,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
)
)
ROBERT HOUSTON,
)
)
Respondent.
)
______________________________)

4:12CV3069

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on petitioner Gregory
Matthies’s (“Matthies”) “Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment.”
(Filing No. 27.)

Matthies seeks reconsideration of the Court’s

March 26, 2013, Memorandum Opinion and Order and Judgment, which
dismissed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus without prejudice (Filing Nos.
25 and 26).
In this case, Matthies asserted a violation of his
constitutional right to due process during and after his parole
hearings before the State of Nebraska Board of Parole (Filing
Nos. 1 and 24).

On March 26, 2013, the Court determined that

Matthies’s claims for relief were not cognizable in a federal
habeas action because Matthies had not alleged that he did not
receive an opportunity to be heard or a statement of the reasons
why parole was denied (Filing No. 25).

See Greenholtz v. Inmates

of Nebraska Penal and Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979)
(holding that prisoners subject to Nebraska’s parole statute

received adequate due process when allowed an opportunity to be
heard and were provided a statement of the reasons why parole was
denied).
In Matthies’s “Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment,”
Matthies admits that he received an opportunity to be heard
(Filing No. 27 at CM/ECF p. 1 (“Petitioner appeared before the
Board and was given an opportunity to speak to the Board about
his progress and future prospects for parol”)).

In addition,

Matthies attached to his motion eight separate “Offender Board
Review Notice(s)” from the State of Nebraska Board of Parole that
each provide a statement of the reasons why Matthies’s parole was
denied.

(Id. at CM/ECF pp. 3-10 (e.g., “The nature/circumstances

of your offense(s) indicates that an early release would
depreciate from the seriousness of your crime and promote
disrespect for the law”).)

Thus, Matthies clearly sets forth in

his motion that he received both the opportunity to be heard and
a statement of reasons why his parole was denied.

Indeed,

Matthies’s “Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment” supports the
Court’s previous findings that Matthies’s claims for relief are
not cognizable in a federal habeas action.
and 25.)

Accordingly,

-2-

(See Filing Nos. 22

IT IS ORDERED that petitioner’s “Motion to Alter and
Amend Judgment” (Filing No. 27) is denied.
DATED this 8th day of April, 2013.
BY THE COURT:
/s/ Lyle E. Strom
____________________________
LYLE E. STROM, Senior Judge
United States District Court

* This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or
Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska
does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third
parties or the services or products they provide on their Web
sites. Likewise, the Court has no agreements with any of these
third parties or their Web sites. The Court accepts no
responsibility for the availability or functionality of any
hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or
directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion
of the Court.
-3-