Halterman v. Bigelow et al, No. 2:2011cv01065 - Document 20 (D. Utah 2013)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 9 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Case Closed. Signed by Judge Dee Benson on 3/23/13. (jlw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
, Li. S. "k;::.IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT > ;! p- ._--"- , ''-'. OUffPR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH ':) 1'1· (11 CHRISTIAN LANCE HAt:TERMAN, D;STI~~:C T ~,,~' MEMORANDUM DECISION & ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS 8 Case No. 2:11-CV-1065 DB Dist ct Judge Dee Benson ALFRED BIGELOW et al., Respondents. , Christian Lance Halterman, an inmate at Utah Petit which he ition here, in habeas corpus son, filed a State llenges his imprisonment. He states is serving a one-to-fifteen-year sentence for a manslaughter conviction. s petit appears to contest, under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Petitioner's 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. other similar possibilit Under § 2241, appears to argue, among s, that the Utah Board of Parole and Pardons (BOP) improperly executed his sentence by improperly conducting the process of denying him parole and not following "the matrix" which would have limited his t years. He disagrees with served to fewer amount of time he has served. ANALYSIS a. Section 2254 Claim Pet ioner attacks the constitutionality indeterminate sentencing scheme. Utah's The same challenges were See Straley v. Utah Bd. soundly rejected by the Tenth , 582 F.3d 1208 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1737 of s (2010). § s any relief on the basis The Court thus 2254 claim. b. Section 2241 Claims Court next addresses Petitioner's assertions under § he was entitled to an earlier release, grounded on BOP 2241 s belief that he has simply ies, "the matrix," and short of his fi isoned too long--a r maximum. 1. Period of Limitation riod of limitation The statute setting 1 habeas petitions re in pertinent part: A I-year period of 1 ion shall apply to an application a of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court. The limitation period shall run from the latest of- (A) the date on which judgment became final by the of direct review or for seeking such the expiration review . . . . 28 U.S.C.S. § 2244 (d) (1) (2013). The Court calculates the riod of limitation as 1 The one-year period began running on November 2, 2010, when the Utah Supreme Court e ied Petitioner's petition for writ of certiorari regarding his state post-conviction appl 2 ion. Petitioner then had to file these § within one year, a 2241 adding any time tolled by statute or equity. v. 232 F. Klinger, See id. 799, 803, 808 (10th 2244(d); § r. 2000). ion six days too late, on November 8, However, he filed this 2011. statute, the one-year period of limitation is tolled for "[tJhe time during which a properly filed application for State post-conviction or other lateral review pert is pending." judgment or 2244 (d) (2) (2013). Meanwhi respect to the 28 U.S.C.S. ,equitable § is also 1 e but only in "'rare and exceptional circumstances. ,n avai Laurson v. Leyba, 507 F.3d 1230,1232 (2007) (quoting Gibson, 232 F.3d at 808). Pet ioner does not a ling apply here. Accordingly, the above Court were filed st And, neither statutory Petit that statutory or equitable § 2241 claims before one-year period of limitation. ons nor equitable ling save from the period of limitation's ope rat thus The Court s Petitioner's 2. Lack of Federal Constitutional Violation As an alternative basis to deny Petitioner's § 2241 claims, the Court concludes there is no federal constitutional violation here. unless "The writ of habeas shall not extend to a prisoner [hJe is in custody in violation of 3 Constitution United States." or laws or treaties of 2241(c) (2013). As to BOP's decision about the length of ison stay and Petitioner's See 28 U.S.C.S. § s denial of constitutional rights tioner never states in determining whether to grant parole, s any federal rights. how any of this vio ively. e r all, "there is no [ ral] constitutional or inherent right of a convicted person to be the expi one-to-fi Corr. Complex, paro condit of a valid sentence"--in een years. tz v. 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979). is case, a Inmates of Neb. st entitl tutional protection. lly released See & Utah Neither does statute create a liberty federal cons Nor can he do so prisoners to v. Haun, 26 F.3d 1013, 1016 (10th Cir. 1994). CONCLUSION The Court denies all tioner's cl survive an analysis on the merits. 2241 claims were led past the riod of I brought in s habeas ion. Also, s been denied a law 1 help in bringing his conditions-of-confinement, c do not Alternatively, Petitioner's § Petitioner's apparent side argument that library and adequate 1 because ion is a s claim that is inval 1 y tion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Respondents' motion to dismiss peti tion is GRANTED. (See Docket Entry # 9.) 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED r o Petitioner's potential s claim is improperly in this habeas case. Court must mail Petitioner a packet of information a blank civil-rights complaint nt, should Petitioner information on filing sh to further pursue this ial claim. DATED this ~~day of March, 2013. BY THE COURT: DEE~~ ~ ~ ~~------United States 5 st ct Judge 1 k
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
