IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON 

LEVELLE SINGLETON, 

Petitioner, 

v. 

JEFF PREMO, 

Respondent. 

HERNANDEZ, District Judge. 

Case No. 6:14-cv-01940-HZ 

OPINION AND ORDER 

Petitioner in this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus case was 

convicted of Murder in 1986 and sentenced to life in prison with 

a 25-year minimum. Respondent's Exhibit 101. The Oregon Board 

of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision ("Board") paroled 

petitioner in 1995, and ultimately set a tentative parole 

discharge date of November 21, 1996. Respondent's Exhibit 103, 

p. 118. At the time of his tentative parole discharge date, 

petitioner was living in Louisiana and monitored by the 

1 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01940-HZ Document 39 Filed 07/22/16 Page 1 of 4
Louisiana Department of Corrections ( "LDOC") . On petitioner's 

tentative discharge date, the LDOC issued a Progress and Conduct 

Report notifying the Board that petitioner was behind in his 

supervision fees, had failed to report during the prior three 

months, and "has an attitude and does not deal well with 

authority." Id at 43. As a result, on December 9, 1996, the 

Board ordered a continuation of active supervision. Id. 

Petitioner claims the Board failed to notify him of that action, 1 

and also failed to provide him with a hearing as required by 

law. Thereafter, the Board twice revoked petitioner's parole in 

2000 and 2002, respectively, and he remains incarcerated in 

Oregon. 

Petitioner filed this 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus case 

on December 14, 2014. On the first page of his Petition, 

petitioner purports to challenge the Board's January 19, 2011 

decision deferring his release to parole. However, in his only 

ground for relief, petitioner asserts that the Board violated 

his right to due process "when it extended petitioner's parole 

without a hearing and took further actions without proper 

jurisdiction." Petition ( #2) ' p. 6. In his supporting 

The court notes that even the LDOC did not receive the December 9, 1996 

continuation of active supervision until January 22, 1999. Respondent's 

Exhibit 103, p. 43. 

2 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01940-HZ Document 39 Filed 07/22/16 Page 2 of 4
memorandum, petitioner does not challenge the Board's 2011 

decision to defer his release to parole other than to argue that 

all Board actions since November 21, 1996 are invalid because 

the Board failed to lawfully extend his parole discharge date, 

leaving it without jurisdiction over him since that time. 

Respondent asserts that petitioner failed to fairly present 

his due process claim to Oregon's state courts, and petitioner 

does not argue otherwise. See Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 519 

(1982) (requiring a habeas petitioner to present his claims to a 

state's highest court in order to preserve it for federal habeas 

review). Even assuming petitioner fairly presented such a claim 

for exhaustion purposes, he failed to timely file this case 

where his challenge is not to the 2011 hearing, but is instead 

to the Board's December 9, 1996 decision to extend his tentative 

parole discharge date beyond November 21, 1996 without affording 

him the due process protections to which he was allegedly 

entitled. See 28 U.S.C. 2244(d) (1) (petitioners have one year 

in which to file for habeas corpus relief) . 

Moreover, petitioner's due process claim is essentially 

duplicative of one he raised in federal court in 2004 where he 

alleged that the Board had been without jurisdiction to revoke 

his parole in 2002 because he was entitled to full parole 

3 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01940-HZ Document 39 Filed 07/22/16 Page 3 of 4
discharge on November 21, 1996. Judge Hogan, adopting Judge 

Coffin's Findings and Recommendation, concluded that petitioner 

not only failed to fairly present the due process issue to 

Oregon's state courts so as to preserve it for federal habeas 

corpus review, but also failed to timely file for habeas relief 

on this issue. Singleton v. Belleque, Case No. 04-cv-01790-TC. 

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that decision in an 

unpublished opinion. 328 Fed. Appx. 431 (2009). 

Where it is apparent that petitioner's due process claim is 

not properly before this court for adjudication, relief on the 

Petition is denied. 

CONCLUSION 

For the reasons identified above, the Petition for Writ of 

Habeas Corpus ( #2) is denied. The court declines to issue a 

Certificate of Appealabili ty on the basis that petitioner has 

not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (c) (2). 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED this 22 day of July, 2016. 

4 - OPINION AND ORDER 

Case 6:14-cv-01940-HZ Document 39 Filed 07/22/16 Page 4 of 4