Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02896/USCOURTS-azd-2_06-cv-02896-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Larry Douglas Piper, 

Petitioner, 

vs.

Dora B. Schriro, et al., 

Respondents. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CIV 06-2896-PHX-EHC (DKD)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

TO THE HONORABLE EARL H. CARROLL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

On December 1, 2006, Larry Douglas Piper filed a timely petition for writ of habeas

corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254, arguing that Respondent Dora B. Schriro, Director of

the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), had improperly nullified his grant of parole

in violation of his right to due process (Doc. #1). Respondents argue that (1) Piper fails to

raise a federal question, because his request for habeas relief involves the interpretation of

state statutes and ADC policies regarding eligibility for earned release credits and subsequent

parole; (2) Piper has procedurally defaulted by failing to raise the claim in state court; and

(3) Piper’s claim is moot because he has been released on parole. In his Reply, Piper argues

that Respondents' admission that the original parole grant by the Arizona Board of Executive

Clemency (the Board) was lawful establishes a violation of his constitutional right to due

process, and that no exhaustion process exists to challenge a parole board decision. The

Court recommends that Piper’s petition be denied and dismissed with prejudice. 

Case 2:06-cv-02896-EHC Document 16 Filed 04/18/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Piper's requests for injunctive relief and damages were dismissed by the District

Court as not available unless and until Piper obtained a "favorable termination" of the

underlying parole action, and then only in a separate action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983. See Doc. #3 at 2.

- 2 -

Following a 1993 conviction for possession of narcotic drugs for sale, and the

imposition of a fourteen-year prison term, Piper was granted parole and released from ADC

on May 25, 2004 (Doc. #12, Exh A, Attachments 1-3). Following a violation of the

conditions of his parole and reinstatement of his parole, he absconded from supervision and

was arrested on March 9, 2005 (Id., Attachments 4-5). Because his time on absconder status

was not credited to him, Piper’s new sentence expiration date was August 30, 2007 (Id.,

Attachment 6). On June 20, 2006, the Board granted him parole; ADC subsequently

determined he was ineligible, and nullified his grant of parole (Id., Attachment 7). A review

by the Board found that the June 20, 2006 parole grant was still valid; on February 13, 2007,

Piper was released on parole (Id., Attachment 8). 

Assuming arguendo that Piper has raised a federal claim by asserting a due process

violation as a result of the temporary nullification of his parole, his challenge to ADC's

decision should have initially been brought in state court as a special action petition, for a

determination as to whether ADC “has proceeded or is threatening to proceed without or in

excess of jurisdiction or legal authority.” See Ariz. R. P. Spec. Act. 3 (b). In any event, the

Court agrees with Respondents that the request for relief is now moot, because Piper has

been released from custody to serve his remaining sentence on parole - the specific remedy

he sought by filing this petition.1

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that Piper’s petition for writ of habeas

corpus be DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE (Doc. #1).

This recommendation is not an order that is immediately appealable to the Ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals. Any notice of appeal pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1), Federal Rules of

Appellate Procedure, should not be filed until entry of the district court’s judgment. The

Case 2:06-cv-02896-EHC Document 16 Filed 04/18/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

parties shall have ten days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within

which to file specific written objections with the Court. See, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Rules

72, 6(a), 6(e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Thereafter, the parties have ten days within

which to file a response to the objections. Failure timely to file objections to the Magistrate

Judge's Report and Recommendation may result in the acceptance of the Report and

Recommendation by the district court without further review. See United States v. ReynaTapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). Failure timely to file objections to any factual

determinations of the Magistrate Judge will be considered a waiver of a party’s right to

appellate review of the findings of fact in an order or judgment entered pursuant to the

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation. See Rule 72, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DATED this 17th day of April, 2007.

Case 2:06-cv-02896-EHC Document 16 Filed 04/18/07 Page 3 of 3