Pedockie v. Bigelow
Filing
11
MEMORANDUM DECISION denying 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus. Signed by Judge Tena Campbell on 06/05/2012. (asp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_________________________________________________________________
) MEMORANDUM DECISION &
) DISMISSAL ORDER
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
) Case No. 2:11-CV-824 TC
)
ALFRED BIGELOW,
)
) District Judge Tena Campbell
Respondent.
)
_________________________________________________________________
ROBERT PEDOCKIE,
Petitioner, Robert Pedockie, an inmate at Utah State Prison,
filed a federal habeas corpus petition here, in which he
challenges his imprisonment.
He is serving a ten-to-life
sentence on a conviction for first-degree aggravated kidnaping.
This petition appears to contest, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254,
his sentencing, and, under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, the consequent
execution of his sentence.
Under § 2254, he apparently argues
that he was sentenced to an unconstitutional indeterminate
sentence.
Under § 2241, he appears to argue, among other similar
possibilities, that the Utah Board of Parole and Pardons (BOP)
improperly executed his sentence by using aggravating
circumstances, not proven in court, to determine the length of
his sentence within his sentencing range, and by not following
"the matrix" which would have limited his time served to nine-toten years.
On April 4, 2012, this Court issued an order to show cause1
requiring Plaintiff to within thirty days to explain why, despite
the following analysis of his issues, he should be allowed to
proceed with his petition. Petitioner responded on May 4, 2012.2
ANALYSIS
a. Utah's Indeterminate Sentencing Scheme
Petitioner attacks the constitutionality of Utah's
indeterminate-sentencing scheme.
The same challenges were
soundly rejected by the Tenth Circuit.
See Straley v. Utah Bd.
of Pardons, 582 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S.
Ct. 1737 (2010).
Accordingly, the Court denies relief on the
basis of this § 2254 claim.
b. Questions of State Law
The Court next addresses all of Petitioner's possible
assertions under § 2241 that he was entitled to an earlier
release, based on "the matrix"; that BOP did not protect his
constitutional rights in determining whether to grant him parole
(by following guidelines, among other things); and, that Labrum
v. Utah State Bd. of Pardons, 870 P.2d 902 (Utah 1993), was
violated.
Under § 2241, "[t]he writ of habeas corpus shall not extend
to a prisoner unless . . . [h]e is in custody in violation of the
1
Docket No. 6.
2
Docket No. 9.
2
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."
U.S.C.S. § 2241(c) (2012).
See 28
As to BOP's decision about the length
of Petitioner's prison stay and its denial of constitutional
rights in determining whether to grant parole, Petitioner never
states how any of this violates any federal rights.
do so effectively.
Nor can he
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 of ten-to-life.
Greenholtz v.
Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979).
Neither does the Utah parole statute create a liberty interest
entitling prisoners to federal constitutional protection.
See
Malek v. Haun, 26 F.3d 1013, 1016 (10th Cir. 1994).
The Court also considers Petitioner's possible arguments
about due process in parole determinations under the law set
forth in Labrum v. Utah State Bd. of Pardons, 870 P.2d 902 (Utah
1993).
Labrum is Utah law and is not controlling in this federal
court.
It is well-settled that a federal court may grant habeas
relief only for violations of the United States Constitution or
laws of the United States.
Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68
(1991); Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).
law do not constitute a basis for relief.
Errors of state
Estelle, 502 U.S. at
67; Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990).
Accordingly,
Petitioner has no valid argument here based on state law.
3
CONCLUSION
Petitioner's response to the order to show cause, in which
he rehashed discredited reasons why indeterminate sentences
should be invalidated, did nothing to convince the Court that its
analysis is incorrect.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition is DENIED.
case is CLOSED.
DATED this 5th day of June, 2012.
BY THE COURT:
__________________________
TENA CAMPBELL
United States District Judge
4
This
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?