United States District Court, D. Oregon
MICHAEL W. JENKINS, Petitioner,
BRIGITTE AMSBERRY, Respondent.
Anthony D. Bornstein Assistant Federal Public Defender
Attorney for Petitioner
F. Rosenblum, Attorney General Samuel A. Kubernick, Assistant
Attorney General Department of Justice 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 decision by the Oregon
Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision
("Board") to revoke his parole and
impose a 18 0-month sanction. For the reasons that follow,
the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (#14) is
three separate criminal cases in 1979 and 1980, the Multnomah
County Circuit Court sentenced Petitioner to lengthy
sentences for a variety of criminal conduct. All of these
sentences were of an indeterminate nature because they were
imposed pursuant to Oregon's old matrix scheme (which
ended in 1989). The Board established a projected parole
release date of March 5, 2013.
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. As a result, when the Board paroled him on March
5, 2013, it did not release him from custody and, instead,
paroled him to the service of his indeterminate 15-month
serving his 15-month sentence, Petitioner struck another
inmate. This prompted the Board to revoke his parole and set
a future disposition hearing for December 11, 2013. At the
future disposition hearing, the Board imposed a 180-month
sanction based upon Petitioner's parole violation
established a new projected release date of August 26, 2018.
availed himself of the administrative appeal procedure, but
the Board denied relief. Respondent's Exhibit 102, pp.
4-5. Petitioner then filed a judicial appeal, but 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, 248 Or.App. 447, 379 P.3d 854, rev.
denied, 360 Or.* 422, 392 P.3d 321 (2016) .
December 12, 2016, Petitioner filed this habeas corpus case.
With the assistance of appointed counsel, Petitioner filed
his Amended Petition on May 30, 2017 wherein he alleges two
grounds for relief:
1. The Board violated Petitioner's right to due process
when it exercised authority it did not have to revoke
Petitioner's parole and impose a 180-month sanction; and
2. The Board violated Petitioner's right to due process
when it arbitrarily applied Oregon's parole statutes and
rules to revoke his parole and impose the 180-month sanction.
asks the Court to deny relief on the Amended Petition because
Petitioner failed to adequately preserve these ...