United States District Court, D. Oregon
Michael Robert Haynes Petitioner, Pro Se
F. Rosenblum, Kristen E. Boyd, Attorneys for Respondent
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL W. MOSMAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
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 Supervision ("Board").
For the reasons that follow, the Petition for Writ of Habeas
Corpus (#1) is dismissed because it is untimely.
is serving a life sentence with a 30-year minimum term
following his 1986 guilty plea to one count of Aggravated
Murder in Washington County. On April 8, 2015, 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 time, and that he could not petition for
another murder review hearing until April of 2025. Petitioner
timely for administrative review, which the Board denied on
April 27, 2016. Respondent's Exhibit 111, p. 17.
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 for judicial
review, but he failed to meet this deadline. As a result, the
Oregon Court of Appeals dismissed Petitioner's appeal on
procedural grounds. Respondent's Exhibit 112, p. 1. The
Oregon Court of Appeals denied Petitioner's subsequent
motion for reconsideration, and the Oregon Supreme Court
found that it lacked jurisdiction because Petitioner had not
timely sought judicial review. Respondent's Exhibit 118.
The Oregon Supreme Court denied a subsequent motion for
reconsideration, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied
certiorari. Respondent's Exhibits 125, 126.
meantime (and before the mailing of the Board's
administrative review denial), Petitioner filed a 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,
even assuming it was, the challenge lacked
merit.Respondent's Exhibits 104, 105. The
Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed that decision without
issuing a written opinion, and the Oregon Supreme Court
denied review. Respondent's Exhibits 108 (ER-1), 109.
filed this federal habeas corpus action on February 15, 2018
challenging the Board's April 8, 2015
decision. Respondent asks the Court to deny relief
on the Petition because: (1) Petitioner failed to timely file
this case; (2) 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
Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act
("AEDPA") generally requires that habeas corpus
petitioners file their petitions within one year of the time
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, the one-year statute of limitations
commences pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D) 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 (9th 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 of limitations began to run.
See Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d 1061, 1066
(9th Cir. 2004).
had until July 5, 2016 in which to file for judicial review.
As noted in the Background of this 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,  thereby placing him well outside of the
AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. The Petition is
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