Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00598/USCOURTS-azd-2_14-cv-00598-1/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 

Anthony Donald Obregon,

Petitioner, 

v. 

Charles L. Ryan, et al., 

Respondents.

No. CV-14-00598-PHX-PGR

ORDER 

 The Court has before it the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) of Magistrate 

Judge Mark E. Aspey, filed on February 11, 2015. Petitioner, Anthony Donald Obregon, 

has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. The Court has conducted a de 

novo review of Obregon’s petition and objections. For the reasons discussed below, the 

Court rejects Obregon’s objections and accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s Report 

and Recommendation. 

 Obregon objects that he did not bring this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, but 

rather that he brings this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, the Report and 

Recommendation explicitly states that Obregon’s petition is properly brought under 

§ 2254 rather than § 2241, and this Court agrees. See White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 

1005-07 (9th Cir, 2004) (§ 2254 is the exclusive avenue for challenging constitutionality 

of continued detention by prisoner in state custody pursuant to a state court judgment), 

overruled on other grounds, Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 555 (9th Cir. 2010) (en 

Case 2:14-cv-00598-PGR Document 17 Filed 03/10/15 Page 1 of 3
- 2 - 

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 

banc); Montue v. Department of Corrections, 279 Fed. App’x 506 (9th Cir. 2008) 

(challenge to denial of parole brought in a § 2241petition properly dismissed because 

such challenges can only properly be brought in a § 2254 petition); Sass v. California 

Board of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir. 2006) (§ 2254 is exclusive vehicle 

for state prisoner challenging parole board decision), overruled on other grounds, 

Hayward, 603 F.3d at 555. Obregon may have been confused that the Report and 

Recommendation even mentions § 2241, but his issue was raised by the state, which 

argued in its answer that the petition should be viewed under § 2241 rather than § 2254. 

(See Doc. 12 at 5-6.) The Report and Recommendation rejects the state’s position and 

instead recommends that this Court find that the petition is properly brought under 

§ 2254. 

 Obregon objects that he has a constitutional right to be released upon the service 

of his required court-ordered “mandatory minimum” sentence, and that his constitutional 

rights have been violated by the state’s continued detention of him beyond January 14, 

2014. Contrary to Obregon’s arguments, he is not being held beyond the date his 

sentence expired and his sentence was not “commuted” to January 14, 2014. Rather, 

January 14, 2014, was merely the date that Obregon first became eligible for parole 

because he had served the mandatory minimum of two-thirds of his total forty-two year 

sentence. Thus, the Court will reject Obregon’s objection that he is being held after his 

sentence expired. 

 Further, that Obregon became eligible for parole on January 14, 2014, does not 

mean that he had the right to be released on that date. See Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal 

Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979) (no constitutional right to be released before expiration of a 

valid sentence). To the contrary, where a state, such as Arizona, provides for release on 

parole, Due Process requires only that the state have fair procedures in place for seeking 

such release, and this Court’s review of the denial of parole is limited to the application 

of the state’s procedures. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 220 (2011). Obregon 

does not challenge the state’s procedures for seeking parole, or how those procedures 

Case 2:14-cv-00598-PGR Document 17 Filed 03/10/15 Page 2 of 3
- 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 

were applied to him. Accordingly, the Court will reject Obregon’s objection that he had 

the right to be released on January 14, 2014, and his challenges to the denial of parole. 

 IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (Doc. 

14) is accepted and adopted by the Court. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the petitioner’s Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody is Denied and that this action is 

dismissed. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that no certificate of appealability shall be issued 

and that the petitioner is not entitled to appeal in forma pauperis because the petitioner 

has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right in that he has 

failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the Court’s assessment of his 

constitutional claims to be debatable or wrong. 

 Dated this 10th day of March, 2015. 

Case 2:14-cv-00598-PGR Document 17 Filed 03/10/15 Page 3 of 3