Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01207/USCOURTS-ca10-92-01207-0/pdf.json

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

---

FIL---~ J) l UNITED STATES COURT OF APPE~~ Stares Court of APP" F 

Um '£enth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, JR., 

Petitioner-Appellant, 

v. 

JOE QUINTANA, U. S. Probation Officer; 

RICHARD MIKLIC, named as Chief U.S. 

Probation Officer; UNITED STATES 

PAROLE COMMISSION, 

Respondents-Appellees. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

APR 2 8 1993 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 92-1207 

(D.C. No. 92-N-320) 

(D. Colo.) 

Before McKAY, Chief Judge, SEYMOUR, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34 (a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1 . 9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The case is therefore ordered 

This matter is before us on appeal from the district court's 

dismissal of Mr. Green's petition for writ of habeas corpus in 

which he sought to challenge certain conditions attached to his 

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 1 
mandatory release supervision. Petitioner is no longer on 

release, having been subsequently convicted on state charges of 

sexual 

offender. 

assault, criminal extortion, and being an habitual 

We AFFIRM the district court's dismissal of the petition for 

substantially the reasons set forth in the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge, a copy of which is attached to this order and 

judgment. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

PER CURIAM 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 2 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 92-N-320 

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, 

Petitioner, 

-vs.-

JOE QUINTANA, U.S. Probation Officer, 

CHIEF U.S. PROBATION OFFICER and U.S. 

PAROLE COMMISSION, 

Respondents. 

r I LED FD ST" TE8 01snuCT COUR.; 

DENVE" COlC••oo 

/,Pr< 0 8 1992 

J ~MES R. MANSPEAKER 

CLEr 

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

t; ~ 

-~ 

----------------------------------------ff r'"': 

Petitioner Clovis Carl Green, while on mandatory release 

supervision for a federal sentence , initiated this action by filing a 

prose petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 u.s.c~ S 2241. 

Petitioner asserts that the terms and conditions of his mandatory 

release violate his rights under the United States Constitution. · 

Pursuant to Rule 605 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United 

states District Court of the District of Colorado, this matter has been 

referred to Magistrate Judge Richard M. Borchers. Upon a review of the 

petition and the applicable law, a recommendation is made that the 

petition be dismissed. 

As Petitioner is representing himself, his petition will be 

construed liberally. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972); 

Collins v. Cundy, 603 F.2d 825, 827 (10th Cir. 1979). A petition must 

be dismissed if, accepting the allegations as true, it appears beyond 

doubt tha t Petiti oner can prove no set of f acts in support of his claim 

Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 3 
that would entitle him to relief. Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236 

{1974); Meade v. Grubbs, 841 F.2d 1512, 1526 (10th Cir. 1988). 

Since Petitioner filed this petition, he was arrested in Denver on 

new state criminal charges, and the Parole Commission issued a violator 

warrant. The petition challenges the specific conditions that had been 

placed on Petitioner's mandatory release and requests this Court to 

remove those restrictions. Because Petitioner has now been 

reincarcerated, there does not appear to be a live case or controversy 

at this time. A favorable determination on this petition would not 

entitle Petitioner to any benefits at this point, and Petitioner no 

longer has a personal stake in the outcome of this case. Thus, the 

petition should be dismissed as moot. See Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 

U.S. 147 (1975); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974); United 

states ex rel. Graham v. U.S. Parole Commission, 732 F.2d 849 (11th 

Cir. 1984}. 

In any event, the terms and conditions placed on Petitioner's 

mandatory release did not violate Petitioner's constitutional rights. 

Parole conditions must be sustained if there is a rational basis in the 

record for them. Bagley v. Harvey. 718 F.2d 921, 925 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Because parole is an extension of confinement, limitations resulting in 

diminished income or restricted living or travel arrangements during 

the time of parole or mandatory release supervision do not result in a 

constitutional violation. Bricker v. Michigan Parole Board, 405 

F.Supp. 1340, 1343-44 (E.D.Mich. 1975}. The purpose of parole or 

mandatory release supervision is to assist an individual in an effort 

2 

Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 4 
to r e -int egrate himself i nto society. Theref ore , legi t imat e state 

interests warrant placing some conditions on the individual's behavior. 

Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 477-80 (1972). such restrictions do 

not rise to the level of violating Petitioner's rights under the First 

Amendment. 

[W]hen a convict is conditionally released on parole, the 

government retains a substantial interest in ensuring that 

its rehabilitative goal is not frustrated and that the public 

is protected by further criminal acts by the parolee. 

Birson v. King. 469 F.2d 1242, 1243 (2d Cir. 1972). 

The U.S. Parole Commission has spent substantial time evaluating 

Petitioner. He has received three parole hearings prior to being 

~EAdatorily released. Numerous assessments and evaluations have been 

prepared regarding Petitioner. (See Exhibits B, c, D, I and M to 

Government's Response). The conditions attached to Petitioner's 

mandatory release were not arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of 

discretion. Rather, the conditions were carefully considered decisions 

on how best to facilitate Petitioner's rehabilitation. 

IT IS THEREFORE _RECPMMENDED that Petitioner Clovis Carl Green's 

petition be dismissed. 

FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that under Rule 605 of the Local Rules of 

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of 

Colorado, the parties shall have ten days after service hereof to file 

any written objections with the assigned District Judge. The party 

filing an objection must specifically identify those findings or 

recommendations to which objections are being made. The District Court 

3 

Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 5 
need not consider frivolous, conclusive, or general objections . A 

party's failure to file such written objections to proposed findings 

and recommendations contained in this document may bar the party from a 

de IlQY.Q determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings 

and recommendations. United states v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-

83(1980); 28 u.s.c. §636(b) (1). Additionally, the failure to file 

written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations within 

ten days after being served with a copy may bar the aggrieved party 

from appealing the factual findings of the Magistrate Judge that are 

accepted or adopted by the District Court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 

140(1985). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a copy of Local Rule 605 be attached to 

the copy of this Recommendation sent to Petitioner. _.,.,..,- . 

DATED and ENTERED ~his- ·2 day of Ap~-fl, 1992 . 

BY THE COURT: ., 

I 

---- - -- -A~------_--_ ...... _, _____ _ / RICHARD M. BORCHERS 

United States Magistrate Judge 

...... _ 

4 

Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 6 
LOCAL RULES OF PRAC TIC E 

Rule 605 

Prisoner Petitions 

A. Subject to provisions of the United States Supreme Court Rules governing 

§ 2254 and § 2255 cases, the uniform rules of ancillary forms for use in the district 

courts within the Tenth Circuit have been adopted. These rules apply to _E!£ 

se petitions for writs of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and § 2f54 

and motions under Rule 35, Federal Rules ·of Criminal Procedure, and to civil 

rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Copies of the uniform rules and ancillary 

forms shall be made available upon request made to the clerk. 

B. When presented for filing, _E!£ se petitions under 28 U.S.C. § 2241, § 2254, 

and .E!£ se complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 shall be delivered to a magistrate 

who shall review the motion and affidavit to proceed in forma pauperis and rule 

thereon in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915. lf the motion is granted, the 

magistrate shall promptly review the file and, if there is any basis for jurisdiction 

and possible merit, the magistrate shall direct the clerk to make service of process. 

C. lf the magistr~te determines · that the case may be dismissed pursuant 

to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d) or F.R.Civ.P. 12, the magistrate shall prepare a 

recommendation and appropriate order for consideration by a district judge, 

who shall at that time be selected as provided in Rule 200. 

D. These cases shall be assigned to a district judge drawn by lot and to a 

designated magistrate. The assigned magistrate shall review promptly all further 

pleadings and may: 

1. Issue such orders as may be needed to obtain a complete record. 

2. Co(!duct such evidentiary hearings as may be necessary, including the 

conduct of on-site depositions and investigations. 

3. Prepare appropriate findings and recommendations for consideration 

by the district judge, copies of which shall be mailed to the parties 

who shall have ten (IO} days after service thereof to serve and file 

specific written objections thereto. If no such objections are timely 

filed, the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations may 

be accepted by the district judge and appropriate orders entered 

without further notic e. 

4. Obtain the expecte d re lease date of inmates filing complaints under 

42 U.S.C. § 1983 to determine when plaintiffs may be ava ilable for 

trial. 

('O ou; ,..;_90\.,. C" FF~,-~ ;u~ 1:'o 'h .-,, --;, .. ,, 1 1 OR A. ' 

Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 7 
Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 8 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Case No. 92-N-320 

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. 

Denver County Jail, Box 1108 

Denver, co 80202 

David Conner 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

the 

Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 9 
Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 10 
,. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Civil Action No. 92-N-320 

CLOVIS CARL GREEN, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JOE QUINTANA, U.S. Probation Officer, 

CHIEF U.S. PROBATION OFFICER and U.S. 

PAROLE COMMISSION, 

Respondents. 

rlLtl) 

:o STATES OISTIUCl cour .. 

DEN\IER. CCL~ll 4.~0 

f ,PR 2 ! 1992 

JAMES R. MANSP£AKEF 

CLE.: 

ADDENDUM TO RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Petitioner's April 17, 1992 

filing of a motion for immediate ~videntiary hearing. on April 15, 

1992, the Court recommended that Petitioner's petition be dismissed. 

There is nothing in the motion which would indicate that dismissal 

of the petition is inappropriate. 

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that the previous Recommendation be 

followed, and Petitioner Clovis Carl Green's petition be dismissed. 

FURTHER, IT IS ORDERED that under Rule 605 of the Local Rules of 

Practice of Practice of the United States District Court for the 

District of Colorado, the parties shall have ten days after ~ervice 

hereof to serve and file any written objections in order to obtain 

reconsideration b y the District Judge to whom this case is assigned. 

Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. The party filing objections must specifically 

identify those findings or recommendations to which the objections are 

Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 11 
being made. The District Court need not consider frivolous, conclusive 

or general objections. A party's failure to file such written 

objection to proposed findings and recommendations contained in this 

report may bar the party from a de nova determination be the District 

Judge of the proposed findings and recommendations. United States v. 

Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 676-83 (1980); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) (1). 

Additionally, the failure to file written objections to the proposed 

findings and recommendations within ten days after being served with a 

·copy may bar the aggrieved party from appealing the factual findings of 

the Magistrate Judge that are accepted or adopted by the District 

court. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) Moore v. United States, 950 

r:-2d 656 (10th Cir. 1991); Neihaus v. Kansas Bar Ass'n, 793 F.2d 1159, 

1164 (10th Cir. 1986). 

It is further ORDERED that the clerk of the United States District 

Court shall attach to a copy of this recommendation for Petitioner a 

copy of Rule 605 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States 

District court for the District of Colorado. 

Dated at Denver, Colorado, this 2 /

1

,1., day of April, 1992. 

Richard M • . Sorchers 

United .. .States Magistrate Judge ....--·· -----

Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 12 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO 

Case No. 92-N-320 

Clovis Carl Green, Jr. 

Denver County Jail, Box 1108 

Denver, co 80202 

David Conner 

Assistant U.S. Attorney 

t~ the 

Clerk 

Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 13 
Appellate Case: 92-1207 Document: 010110220192 Date Filed: 04/28/1993 Page: 14