Hayes v. Peters et al

Filing 32

OPINION AND ORDER: The Court dismisses the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (# 1 ), with prejudice, on the basis that it is untimely. The Court declines to issue a Certificate of Appealability on the basis that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2). Signed on 3/15/2019 by Judge Michael W. Mosman.(Mailed to Pro Se party on 3/15/2019.) (joha)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
MICHAEL ROBERT HAYNES,
Case No. 2:18-cv-00331-MO
Petitioner,
OPINION AND ORDER
v.
COLETTE PETERS, et al.,
Respondents.
Michael Robert Haynes
6825517
Eastern Oregon Correctional Institution
2500 Westgate
Pendleton, OR 97801-9699
Petitioner, Pro Se
Ellen F. Rosenblum, Attorney General
Kristen E. Boyd, Assistant Attorney General
Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, Oregon 97310
Attorneys for Respondent

1 - OPINION AND ORDER

MOSMAN, District Judge.
Petitioner

brings

this

habeas

corpus

case

pursuant

to

28

U.S.C. § 2254 challenging the legality of a 2015 decision by the
Oregon

Board

of

Post-prison

For

the

the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

reasons that follow,

Supervision

("Board").

(#1)

is dismissed because it is untimely.
BACKGROUND

Petitioner
minimum

term

is

serving

following

Aggravated Murder

his

a

life

1986

in Washington

sentence

guilty

plea

County.

a

with
to

On April

count

one
8,

30-year

2015,

of
the

Board conducted a murder review hearing pursuant to ORS 163.105
and concluded that Petitioner was not likely to be rehabilitated
within

a

reasonable

another murder

time,

review

and

that

hearing

he

until

could not

April

of

petition

2025.

for

Petitioner

timely for administrative review, which the Board denied on April
27, 2016. Respondent's Exhibit 111, p. 17.
The Board mailed its denial of administrative review on May
4, 2016. Id. Pursuant to ORS 144.335, Petitioner had 60 days from
· the mailing date in which to file
failed to meet this deadline.
Appeals

dismissed

Respondent's
denied
the

Petitioner's

Oregon

because

Supreme

Petitioner

Respondent's

Exhibit

112,

p.

appeal
1.

The

subsequent motion
Court
had

found
not

118.

2 - OPINION AND ORDER

The

judicial review,

As a result,

Petitioner's

Exhibit

for

that

timely
Oregon

on

the Oregon Court of
procedural

Oregon
for
it

but he

Court

of

grounds.
Appeals

reconsideration,
lacked

sought
Supreme

and

jurisdiction

judicial
Court

review.
denied

a

subsequent motion for reconsideration, and the U.S. Supreme Court
denied certiorari. Respondent's Exhibits 125, 126.
In

the

meantime

administrative

(and

before

review denial) ,

the

mailing

Petitioner

filed

of
a

the

Board's

state habeas

corpus action in April 2016 challenging the Board's decision. The
Marion County Circuit Court concluded that a state habeas corpus
action was not a proper vehicle by which to challenge the Board's
decision and,
Respondent's

even assuming it was,
Exhibits

104,

105.

the challenge lacked merit. 1

The

Oregon

Court

of

Appeals

affirmed that decision without issuing a written opinion, and the
Oregon

Supreme

Court

denied

review.

Respondent's

this

federal

habeas

Exhibits

108

(ER-1), 109.
Petitioner
February
decision.

15,
2

filed
2018

Respondent

Petition because:
(2)

(1)

challenging
asks

the

the

corpus

Board's

Court

to

deny

action

April
relief

8,
on

on
2015
the

Petitioner failed to timely file this case;

all of Petitioner's

claims are procedurally defaulted;

and

(3) to the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge the denial of his
state habeas corpus action, that action was not properly filed in
state

court

and,

therefore,

is

not

properly at

issue

in

this

federal habeas proceeding.

Ill
1

In Oregon, state habeas relief is unavailable to challenge a parole decision
if the inmate is eligible to seek judicial review of the Board's decision. ORS
34.330.

2 Although the Petition was actually filed with the Court on February 20,
2018, pursuant to the "prison mailbox rule," a prisoner's documents are deemed
filed at the moment the prisoner delivers them to prison authorities for
forwarding to the clerk of the court. Saffold v. Newland, 224 F.3d 1087, 1091
( 9th Cir. 2000) .

3 - OPINION AND ORDER

DISCUSSION

The Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act ("AEDPA")
generally

requires

petitions

that

within

one

habeas

corpus

of

year

the

petitioners
time

file

their

their

underlying

convictions became final at the conclusion of his direct review.
28

U.S.C.

§

2244 (d) (1) (A).

In cases

such as

this

one where a

habeas petitioner challenges a parole board decision,
year
§

statute

of

2244 (d) (1) (D)

limitations

commences

pursuant

to

the one28

U.S.C.

on "the date on which the factual predicate of

the claim or claims presented could have been discovered through
the

exercise

of

due

diligence"

which

for

purposes

of

parole

deferrals is "the date the administrative decision became final."
Redd

v.

McGrath,

343

F.3d

1077,

1084

(9 th

Cir.

2003).

Where

Oregon's administrative review process specifically provides for
direct judicial review, once Petitioner could no longer properly
file for direct judicial review, the appeal became final and the
one-year

statute

Bartlett,

391 F.3d 1061, 1066 (9 th Cir. 2004)

Petitioner
judicial

review.

of

had
As

limitations

until
noted

July

began

5,

in the

2016

to

in

run.

See

which

Background of

to
this

Shelby

v.

file

for

Opinion,

Petitioner failed to do so in a timely fashion. As a result, the
AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations commenced on July 6, 2016
and ran unabated until Petitioner filed this federal habeas case
on February 15,

2018, 3 thereby placing him well outside of the

3

Where Petitioner's state habeas corpus action was not properly filed, it
did not toll the AEDPA's statute of limitations. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) (2).
Similarly, because Oregon's state courts rejected the state habeas case on
procedural grounds, to the extent Petitioner intends to challenge the denial
of state habeas relief in this federal proceeding, he is not entitled to

4 - OPINION AND ORDER

AEDPA's

statute

one-year

of

limitations.

The

Petition

is

therefore untimely. 4
CONCLUSION

The Court dismisses the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus
(#1), with prejudice, on the basis that it is untimely. The Court
declines

to

issue

a

Certificate of Appealabili ty on the basis

that petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§

2253 (c) (2).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this

~

{ ~ day of March, 2019.

Judge

relief. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 731-32 (1991) (independent and
adequate procedural ruling precludes habeas review); Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S.
255, 264 n.10
(1989)
(even where state court makes alternative merits
decision, independent and adequate analysis precludes federal habeas review).
4 Even if Petitioner had timely filed his federal Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus, because he did not timely file for judicial review in the Oregon Court
of Appeals, he did not fairly present the merits of his claims to Oregon's
state courts such that the claims are unpreserved for federal habeas review.
See Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 453 (2000); Castille v. Peoples, 489
U.S. 346, 351 (1989).

5 - OPINION AND ORDER