Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04112/USCOURTS-ca10-07-04112-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

*

 This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of

the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its

persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

December 14, 2007

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

RUDY M. ROMERO,

Petitioner-Appellant, No. 07-4112

v. (D.C. No. 2:05–CV–315–TC)

STATE OF UTAH; CLINT FRIEL,

Warden; MICHAEL SIBBETT,

Chairman of the Utah Board of

Pardons,

(D. Utah )

Respondents-Appellees.

 

ORDER*

Before BRISCOE, McKAY, and McCONNELL, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner Rudy M. Romero was sentenced in state court to five years to life

after pleading guilty to one count of aggravated robbery. The Utah Board of

Pardons and Parole planned to parole Petitioner on July 27, 2004. However, after

receiving DNA information linking Petitioner to a series of rapes committed prior

to his incarceration for which the statute of limitations had passed, the Board

rescinded Petitioner’s scheduled parole and scheduled his next hearing for July 1,

2029. Petitioner then filed this habeas petition challenging the Board’s actions

Appellate Case: 07-4112 Document: 010192002 Date Filed: 12/14/2007 Page: 1
1

Although Petitioner originally filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, the district

court correctly treated the petition as arising under § 2241. See United States v.

Furman, 112 F.3d 435, 438 (10th Cir. 1997).

2

The district court’s original order incorrectly held that Petitioner was

procedurally barred under Utah’s Post Conviction Remedies Act. Respondents

submitted a motion to alter or amend the order, which the district court granted. 

The amended order held that Petitioner should have filed his claim under Utah

Rule of Civil Procedure 65B and explained Petitioner could still file his claim in

state court because “the mere passage of time can never justify continued

imprisonment of one who has been deprived of fundamental rights.” (R. Doc. 30

at 1 (quoting Julian v. State, 966 P.2d 249, 254 (Utah 1998).)

3

Although Petitioner did not file his notice of appeal within thirty days of

the district court’s order denying his petition, his appeal is timely because the

district court did not enter a separate Rule 58 judgment to trigger the appeal

process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(2)(B).

-2-

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.1

 

Before the district court, Petitioner raised due process, double jeopardy,

cruel and unusual punishment, and ex post facto issues. The district court held 

that Petitioner’s claims were precluded because of his failure to exhaust state

remedies.2

 It also denied Petitioner’s application for a certificate of appealability. 

Petitioner now seeks a certificate of appealability from this court.3

Petitioner must obtain a certificate of appealability to challenge the district

court’s denial of his habeas petition. See Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 867

(10th Cir. 2000). Determining whether a certificate of appealability should issue

when a district court has denied a petition on procedural grounds has two

components, one related to the underlying constitutional claims and the other to

the district court’s procedural holding. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484–85

Appellate Case: 07-4112 Document: 010192002 Date Filed: 12/14/2007 Page: 2
-3-

(2000). Each component is part of a threshold inquiry, but the court has

discretion “to first resolve procedural issues.” Id. at 485. “Where a plain

procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of

the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred

in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed

further.” Id. at 484.

Procedurally, “[a] habeas petitioner is generally required to exhaust state

remedies whether his action is brought under § 2241 or § 2254.” Hamm v. Saffle,

300 F.3d 1213, 1216 (10th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

This court cannot address claims that were defaulted in state court

on independent and adequate state procedural grounds unless

[Petitioner] can demonstrate cause for the default and actual

prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or

demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a

fundamental miscarriage of justice. 

Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Nothing in Petitioner’s briefs satisfies our standard for excusing the

procedural state exhaustion requirement on his claims. Petitioner has shown

neither cause for his failure to file in state court nor that a “fundamental

miscarriage of justice” will occur if this court refuses to hear his petition. 

Petitioner only claims that arguing his case in Utah would be “useless.” (Petr.’s

Application for Certificate of Appealability at 4.) 

We have carefully reviewed the parties’ briefs, the district court’s

Appellate Case: 07-4112 Document: 010192002 Date Filed: 12/14/2007 Page: 3
-4-

disposition, and the record on appeal. We conclude that no reasonable jurist

would determine that the district court erred in its procedural ruling. For

substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s orders, we DENY

Petitioner’s request for a certificate of appealability and DISMISS the appeal. 

We GRANT Petitioner’s request to proceed in forma pauperis.

Entered for the Court

Monroe G. McKay

Circuit Judge

Appellate Case: 07-4112 Document: 010192002 Date Filed: 12/14/2007 Page: 4