United States District Court, D. Oregon
MICHAEL W. JENKINS, Petitioner,
BRIGITTE AMSBERRY, Respondent.
Anthony D. Bornstein Assistant Federal Public Defender
Attorney for Petitioner.
A. Kubernick, Assistant Attorney General, Attorneys for
OPINION AND ORDER
MICHAEL H. SIMON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
brings this habeas corpus case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254 challenging the legality of a 2013 decision by the
Oregon Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
("Board"). For the reasons that follow, the Amended
Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#6) is denied.
December 17, 1979, Petitioner was convicted of Attempted
Murder and sentenced to 20 years in prison. On February 11,
1980, Petitioner was convicted of Robbery I and sentenced to
2 0 years in prison, to be served consecutively to the
Attempted Murder sentence. On July 30, 1980, Petitioner was
convicted of Kidnapping I, Sodomy I, Robbery III, and two
counts of Rape I, all of which resulted in the imposition of
63 years in prison to be served consecutively to the
aforementioned sentences. All of these sentences were of an
indeterminate nature because they were imposed pursuant to
Oregon's old matrix scheme (which ended in 1989) .
Petitioner was serving his indeterminate sentences, he was
convicted in Marion County of supplying contraband and
sentenced to 15 months in prison as a guidelines sentence, to
be served consecutively to his indeterminate matrix
sentences. On March 5, 2013, the Board paroled Petitioner
from the last of his matrix sentences. Despite the parole,
Petitioner remained incarcerated because the Board paroled
him directly from his matrix sentences to the service of his
15-month guidelines sentence.
28, 2013, Petitioner struck another prisoner in the face
causing a minor injury in violation of institutional Rule
2.06.02 (Assault II). The Board considered this a violation
of Petitioner's parole condition to "obey all
laws" and on August 20, 2013, revoked his parole from
the matrix sentences. The Board held a Future Disposition
Hearing on December 11, 2015 wherein it imposed a 15-year
prison term as a sanction for the parole violation.
Petitioner sought administrative review from the Board, which
it denied. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the
Board's decision without issuing a written opinion, and
the Oregon Supreme Court denied review. Jenkins v. Board
of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision, 282 Or.App. 369,
385 P.3d 684 (2016); rev. denied, 361 Or. 100, 391
P.3d 135 (2017).
filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus case on March
6, 2017, and the Court appointed counsel to represent him the
following month. With the assistance of counsel, Petitioner
argues that the Board never actually paroled him, thus it
lacked jurisdiction to revoke his parole and impose a 15-year
sanction.Respondent asks the Court to deny relief on
the basis that the Board's actions were neither contrary
to, nor amounted to an unreasonable application of, clearly
established Supreme Court precedent.
Standard of Review
application for a writ of habeas corpus shall not be granted
unless adjudication of the claim in state court resulted in a
decision that was: (1) "contrary to, or involved an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law,
as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,
-" or (2) "based on an unreasonable determination
of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State
court proceeding." 2 8 U.S.C. § 2254(d). A state
court's findings of fact are presumed correct, and
Petitioner bears the burden of rebutting the presumption of
correctness by clear and convincing evidence. 28 U.S.C.
court decision is "contrary to clearly established
precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts
the governing law set forth in [the Supreme Court's]
cases" or "if the state court confronts a set of
facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision
of [the Supreme] Court and nevertheless arrives at a result
different from [that] precedent." Williams v.
Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 405-06 (2000). Under the
"unreasonable application" clause, a federal habeas
court may grant relief "if the state court identifies
the correct governing legal principle from [the Supreme
Court's] decisions but unreasonably applies that
principle to the facts of the prisoner's case."
Id. at 413. The "unreasonable application"
clause requires the state court decision to be more than
incorrect or erroneous. Id. at 410. Twenty-eight
U.S.C. § 2254(d) "preserves authority to issue the
writ in cases where there is no possibility fairminded
jurists could disagree that the state court's decision
conflicts with [the Supreme] Court's precedents. It goes
no farther." Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S.
86, 102 (2011).
as here, a state court reaches a decision on the merits but
provides no reasoning to support its conclusion, the federal
habeas court must conduct an independent review of the record
to determine whether the state court clearly erred in its
application of Supreme Court law. Delgado v. Lewis,223 F.3d 976, 982 (9th Cir. 2000) . In such an instance,
although the court independently reviews the record, it still
lends deference to the state court's ultimate decision
and can only grant habeas relief if the state court's