Sherratt v. USA
Filing
19
MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER DENYING HABEAS PETITION-IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this amended habeas corpus petition is DENIED. This case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 8/5/11. (jmr)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_________________________________________________________________
WILLIAM HENRY SHERRATT,
) MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER
) DENYING HABEAS PETITION
Petitioner,
)
) Case No. 2:10-CV-255 CW
v.
)
) District Judge Clark Waddoups
UTAH BD. OF PARDONS et al.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Petitioner, William Henry Sherratt, filed this amended
habeas corpus petition,1 in which he attacks the same conviction
he attacked in prior petitions that this Court denied.2
The
Court thus determines that the current amended petition should be
denied as "second or successive."3
"SECOND OR SUCCESSIVE" ANALYSIS
The Court lacks jurisdiction over this second or successive
amended habeas application absent prior authorization from the
Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals.4
Because Petitioner has not
1
See 28 U.S.C.S. § 2254 (2011).
2
See Sherratt v. Friel, No. 2:06-CV-1056 PGC (D. Utah June 15, 2007)
(denying habeas relief, against Petitioner's claim that BOP is keeping him
incarcerated longer than it should, because no federal right is violated when
parole is not granted before expiration of valid sentence--in this case, span
extending to life in prison, and, against Petitioner's claim that BOP has
violated Utah's rules regarding proceedings determining parole eligibility,
because these "violations" could only violate Utah Constitution, not Federal
Constitution); Sherratt v. Friel, No. 2:05-CV-8855 TC (D. Utah Sept. 24, 2007)
(denying habeas relief based on passage of period of limitation and denying
assertions of statutory and equitable tolling and actual innocence), aff'd,
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 8828 (10th Cir. 2008), cert. denied, 555 U.S. 1002
(2008).
3
See U.S.C.S. § 2244(b) (2011).
4
See id. § 2244(b)(3)(A).
sought such authorization, the Court may not consider the merits
of the petition.
Under 28 U.S.C.S. § 1631 (2011), the Court has discretion to
transfer this misfiled petition to the court of appeals "if . . .
it is in the interest of justice."
In determining here that a
transfer would not be in the interest of justice, the Court has
examined
whether the claims would be time barred if
filed anew in the proper forum, whether the
claims alleged are likely to have merit, and
whether the claims were filed in good faith
or if, on the other hand, it was clear at the
time of filing that the court lacked the
requisite jurisdiction.5
First, the issue of a time bar is applicable here.
In a
past order in an earlier case denying Petitioner habeas relief,
this Court denied many of the same claims brought here as time
barred.
These allegations include the unsworn nature of the
original criminal complaint; the unsworn, unverified nature of
the original charging information; violation of Petitioner's
rights when he was arraigned, bound over and taken to trial
before the same judge; ineffective assistance of counsel, both at
trial and on direct appeal; denial of rights regarding religion;
the prosecution's withholding of Brady evidence; and new evidence
regarding the victim's confession.
5
In particular, Petitioner's
In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008).
2
assertions of new evidence supporting his actual innocence were
extensively analyzed and rejected in that order.6
Second, these claims clearly lack merit in that they have
gone the rounds of direct appeal and post-conviction relief, both
in the state courts and in this Court, and have been repeatedly
rejected.7
Third, it should have been obvious to Petitioner, upon
filing claims redundant of those raised and denied in his many
earlier cases, that his current petition was not filed in good
faith and that this Court would lack jurisdiction over such a
second or successive petition.
OTHER CLAIM
6
Sherratt, No. 2:05-CV-8855 TC (denying habeas relief based on passage
of period of limitation and denying assertions of statutory and equitable
tolling and actual innocence).
Petitioner's current allegations are somewhat confusing, but the Court
believes they were addressed in its previous orders. If Petitioner thinks
there is some different issue not addressed by the Court previously,
Petitioner is free to bring a request to the Tenth Circuit for permission to
file a second or successive petition.
7
See, e.g., Sherratt, No. 2:06-CV-1056 PGC (denying habeas relief,
against Petitioner's claim that BOP is keeping him incarcerated longer than it
should, because no federal right is violated when parole is not granted before
expiration of valid sentence--in this case, span extending to life in prison,
and, against Petitioner's claim that BOP has violated Utah's rules regarding
proceedings determining parole eligibility, because these "violations" could
only violate Utah Constitution, not Federal Constitution); Sherratt, No. 2:05CV-8855 TC (denying habeas relief based on passage of period of limitation and
denying assertions of statutory and equitable tolling and actual innocence);
Sherratt v. Utah, 2010 UT App 167, cert. denied, 245 P.3d 757 (Utah 2010);
Utah v. Sherratt, 2009 UT App 229, cert. denied, 221 P.3d 837 (Utah 2009);
Sherratt v. Friel, 2006 UT App 286, cert. denied, 150 P.3d 58 (Utah 2006);
Sherratt v. Friel, 2004 UT App 364, cert. denied, 123 P.3d 815 (Utah 2005),
cert. denied, 546 U.S. 1077 (2005); Sherratt v. Friel, 2003 UT App 269, cert.
denied, 84 P.3d 239 (Utah 2004), cert. denied, 543 U.S. 830 (2004);
3
The petition also raises issues regarding the execution of
Petitioner's sentence, which the Court construes as claims under
28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 (2011).
In particular, Petitioner contends
that the Utah Board of Pardons (BOP) violated his rights by not
observing its own procedural rules and by extending Petitioner's
term of incarceration beyond the matrix or other measuring sticks
Petitioner raises--e.g., the length of time "similarly situated"
convicts have served.
These issues were raised in a prior
petition in this Court and rejected, as noted above.8
The Court repeats, under § 2241, "[t]he writ of habeas
corpus shall not extend to a prisoner unless . . . [h]e is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of
the United States."9
As to BOP's decision about the length of
Petitioner's prison stay and its compliance with its own hearing
procedures, Petitioner never states how his federal rights have
been violated.
Nor can he do so effectively.
After all, "there
is no [federal] constitutional or inherent right of a convicted
person to be conditionally released before the expiration of a
valid sentence"--in this case, a span extending to life in
8
Sherratt, No. 2:06-CV-1056 PGC (denying habeas relief, against
Petitioner's claim that BOP is keeping him incarcerated longer than it should,
because no federal right is violated when parole is not granted before
expiration of valid sentence--in this case, span extending to life in prison,
and, against Petitioner's claim that BOP has violated Utah's rules regarding
proceedings determining parole eligibility, because these "violations" could
only violate Utah Constitution, not Federal Constitution) .
9
28 U.S.C.S. § 2241(c) (2011).
4
prison.10
Neither does the Utah law create a liberty interest
entitling prisoners to federal constitutional protection.11
The Court also considers Petitioner's some of arguments
regarding parole-determination procedures as based on alleged
violations of state law.
Utah law is neither controlling nor
persuasive in this federal case.
It is well-settled that a
federal court may grant habeas relief only for violations of the
Constitution or laws of the United States.12
do not constitute a basis for relief.13
Errors of state law
Petitioner thus has no
valid argument here grounded on state law.
CONCLUSION
The Court lacks jurisdiction to review this second or
successive petition.
And, it determines that it is not in the
interest of justice to transfer the case to the Tenth Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Further, Petitioner's claims regarding the execution of his
sentence, under 28 U.S.C.S. § 2241 (2011), are refused as second
or successive and because he has not shown a federal
10
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7
(1979).
11
See Malek v. Haun, 26 F.3d 1013, 1016 (10th Cir. 1994).
12
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S.
19, 21 (1975).
13
Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67; Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990).
5
constitutional violation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this amended habeas corpus
petition is DENIED.14
This case is CLOSED.
DATED this 5th day of August, 2011.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
CLARK WADDOUPS
United States Magistrate Judge
14
(See Docket Entry # 15.)
6
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?