Madrid v. Utah Board of Pardons et al

Filing 11

MEMORANDUM DECISION and ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: It is therefore ordered that Petitioner has thirty days to show cause why his habeas petition should not be DENIED. Signed by Judge Clark Waddoups on 5/15/2013. (kpf)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
_________________________________________________________________
HAROLD MADRID,

) ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE &
) MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner,
)
)
v.
) Case No. 2:13-CV-42 CW
)
DENNIS SORENSEN et al.,
)
) District Judge Clark Waddoups
Respondents.
)
_________________________________________________________________
Petitioner, Harold Madrid, an inmate at Central Utah
Correctional Facility, filed a federal habeas-corpus petition
here, in which he challenges his imprisonment.

He is serving a

one-to-fifteen-year sentence on a conviction for sexual abuse of
a child.
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 not following "the matrix"
which would have limited his time served to eighty-four months.
ANALYSIS
a. Utah's Indeterminate Sentencing Scheme
Petitioner possibly 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).

The Court thus proposes to deny any relief on

the basis of this possible § 2254 claim.
b. Questions of State Law
The Court next addresses any 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
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
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."
U.S.C.S. § 2241(c) (2013).

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 one-to-fifteen years.
Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1,
7 (1979).

Neither does the Utah parole statute create a liberty
2

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, based on Labrum.
Labrum v. Utah State Bd. of Pardons, 870 P.2d 902 (1993).

See

Labrum

is Utah law and 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.

Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 68 (1991);

Rose v. Hodges, 423 U.S. 19, 21 (1975).
not constitute a basis for relief.

Errors of state law do

Estelle, 502 U.S. at 67;

Lewis v. Jeffers, 497 U.S. 764, 780 (1990).

Petitioner thus has

no valid argument here based on state law.
CONCLUSION
The Court proposes to deny all Petitioner's habeas claims
because they do not survive an analysis on the merits.

Further,

Petitioner's claims about the Sex Offender Treatment Program and
any classification changes he may have experienced due to being
expelled from SOTP are civil-rights claims inappropriately
brought in this habeas petition and are thus dismissed.

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Petitioner has thirty days to
show cause why his habeas petition should not be DENIED.
DATED this 5th day of May, 2013.
BY THE COURT:

__________________________
CLARK WADDOUPS
United States District Judge

4