Belue v. Pardons
| Decision Date | 19 July 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:21-cv-00080-REP |
| Parties | JERRY DWAINE BELUE, Petitioner, v. PAROLE AND PARDONS and ASHLEY DOWELL, Executive Director, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Idaho |
Petitioner Jerry Dwaine Belue, a prisoner in custody of the Idaho Department of Correction (IDOC), has filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus challenging his parole revocation and the misspelling of his middle name on IDOC records. (Dkt. 9.) Federal habeas corpus relief is available to petitioners who are held in custody under a state court judgment that violates the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a). The Court is required to review each newly-filed habeas corpus petition to determine whether it should be served upon the respondent, amended, or summarily dismissed. See 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If "it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any attached exhibits that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court," the petition will be summarily dismissed. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
All named parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate Judge to enter final orders in this case. (Dkt. 7.) See 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 73. Upon review of the record, the Court concludes that Petitioner may not proceed on his current pleadings, but may supplement or amend for further review.
In his Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, Petitioner brings the following claims. First, he asserts that IDOC officials continually spell his middle name incorrectly. " Dwaine" is correct. "Dewayne" is incorrect. He desires to have his name corrected on all of his IDOC records. The name error dates back to his 1998 battery charge or conviction for "tossing urine" on staff. (Dkt. 9, p. 4.)
Second, Petitioner asserts that the Idaho Commission on Pardons and Parole (ICPP) wrongfully revoked his parole: (Id., p. 3. He asserts that he did not commit a violation of his parole when he committed a misdemeanor crime while on parole. Id. He claims that prison officials have refused his request for a hearing.
Third, Petitioner vaguely asserts that fraudulent transactions have occurred on his prison trust account because of the incorrect name, causing him monetary loss. Fourth, his mail sent in an attempt to find out how to correct his name within the IDOC system has been confiscated by IDOC employees.
Fifth, Plaintiff alleges that staff are abusing his equal rights to buy items from the commissary while he is in isolation in the mental health unit. He says he "went to extremes to clarify [his] name," resulting in his placement there. (Dkt. 9, p. 5.) He alleges that these government acts violated his Sixth, Eighth, and Ninth Amendment rights.
As for remedies, Petitioner seeks to "have [his] name cleared and go back to normal sentencing." He also seeks punitive damages and reimbursement for his expenses to expose the computer fraud and gross negligence, and court costs and fees. (Id., p. 6.)
Wrongful termination of a parole term granted in the course of a state court criminal sentence results in a deprivation of liberty that is protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment; therefore, such claims are subject to federal habeas corpus review. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 (1972).1 Before a petitioner canbring a state parole revocation claim in federal court, however, he must exhaust his state court remedies. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b). To exhaust a claim, a habeas petitioner must fairly present it to the highest state court for review in the manner prescribed by state law. See O'Sullivan v. Boerckel, 526 U.S. 838, 845 (1999). Unless a petitioner has exhausted his state court remedies relative to a particular claim, a federal district court may deny the claim on its merits, but it cannot otherwise grant relief on unexhausted claims. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b).
As a threshold matter, Petitioner has not alleged that he exhausted his state court remedies before filing his Petition. In Idaho, a wrongful parole revocation is raised in a state habeas corpus petition. It begins in the state magistrate court, and must be appealed to the state district court, and finally to the Idaho Supreme Court (with or without assignment to the Idaho Court of Appeals). See, e.g., Craig v. State, 844 P.2d 1371 (Idaho Ct. App. 1992). Therefore, Petitioner must file a supplement to his Amended Petition showing that he first presented his wrongful parole revocation claim to the Idaho Supreme Court in a procedurally proper manner. If not, he must show cause andprejudice or actual innocence2 to proceed.
Petitioner's other claims are not appropriate habeas corpus claims because they do not challenge the fact or length of his conviction. The United States Supreme Court has made it clear that a habeas corpus action is for the purpose of determining whether a prisoner is "entitled to immediate release or a speedier release from ... imprisonment." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973). Habeas corpus cannot be used to challenge conditions of confinement. Rather, a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is the correct vehicle for such claims.
The Court agrees that a person's true name is important and deserves to be respected, as Petitioner asserts. However, in law, that importance has its limits. See generally Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312 (1925)("Form is not to be insisted upon beyond the requirements of safety and justice."); Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U.S. 511, 517 (1916)(disfavoring defenses "savor[ing] of technicality" in extradition proceedings).
The United States Supreme Court has previously found that an arrest warrant was invalid when it used an entirely incorrect first name, "James" versus "Vandy M." See West v. Cabell, 153 U.S. 78, 85 (1894) (). However, when there is no dispute (even by the petitioner asserting that his name is incorrect) that the petitioner is the person whom legal documents describe and are intended for, a misspelling is considered a harmless error. See Aguasvivas v. Pompeo, 984 F.3d 1047, 1056-57 (1st Cir. 2021); accord, United States v. Fawcett, 115 F.2d 764, 767 (3d Cir. 1940) ( ); Garrett v. United States, No. CV 19-12359 (RMB), 2021 WL 1230064, at *2 (D.N.J. Apr. 1, 2021) ().
Here, because the middle name misspelling issue is not of constitutional concern and Petitioner does not assert that he was not the person convicted of the underlying crime or the person whose parole was revoked, Petitioner must address that issue within the Idaho Department of Correction grievance system, and then in the Idaho state courts, not in federal court.
Similarly, complaints that personal property, such as lost commissary items or prisoner trust account mistakes, should be brought to the attention of prison officials through the prison grievance system, and then in a state court action, if necessary. Not every wrongful act by a government official is a constitutional violation. The UnitedStates Supreme Court has made it clear that the "Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property." Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 328 (1986). Moreover, even the intentional destruction of personal property by prison officials will not support a due process claim under § 1983 if the prisoner has an adequate remedy under state law. See Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984); Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527 (1981), overruled in part by Daniels, 474 U.S. at 330-31.
Idaho has adopted the Idaho Tort Claims Act (ITCA), Idaho Code § 6-901, et seq., to provide a remedy for citizens injured by the tortious acts of governmental entities, officials, and employees. As a general rule, citizens can sue for and recover monetary damages from Idaho governmental entities for damages arising out of negligent or otherwise wrongful acts or omissions of the entity and its employees acting within the course and scope of employment. Idaho Code § 6-903(a). Again, Petitioner's remedy is in state court, not federal court, for loss of personal property, including trust account funds.
Petitioner asserts that his right to equal protection is being violated, because he does not have the same rights in the mental health isolation unit as he does in general population. While an equal protection claim invokes the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution, here, Petitioner's factual assertions fall short under the rational basis standard applicable to equal protection claims of that nature.
Under the Equal Protection Clause, "all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike" by governmental entities. F.S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412, 415 (1920). However, "[t]he Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated in law as though they were the same." Tigner v. Texas, 310 U.S. 141, 147 (1940).
Petitioner has provided no factual allegations that a fundamental right was impinged or that a discriminatory intent was involved, such that a strict scrutiny analysis would apply. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 682 (2009) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial