Jenkins v. Amsberry, 2:16-cv-02314

Jenkins received multiple indeterminate sentences (1979–1980) under Oregon's old matrix scheme; the Board set a projected parole release date of March 5, 2013.
While incarcerated he received a consecutive 15-month guidelines sentence; when the Board paroled him on March 5, 2013 it effectively released him into service of that 15-month sentence rather than to supervision.
While serving the 15-month term Jenkins struck another inmate; the Board revoked parole and, after a future disposition hearing, imposed a 180‑month sanction and set a new projected release date of August 26, 2018.
Jenkins exhausted administrative remedies and sought judicial review in Oregon state court, where he raised his claims as state‑law issues; the Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed and the Oregon Supreme Court denied review.
In federal habeas Jenkins alleged (1) the Board lacked authority to revoke parole because he was serving a sentence, and (2) the Board arbitrarily applied parole statutes/rules in revoking parole and imposing the 180‑month sanction.
The district court denied the amended habeas petition, holding Jenkins procedurally defaulted his federal due‑process claims by failing to fairly present them to the state courts; the court also declined a Certificate of Appealability.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Board lacked authority to revoke parole because Jenkins was transferred to serve another sentence	Jenkins: his "release to parole" was actually a transfer to service of another sentence, so no supervision conditions existed and Board lacked revocation authority	Amsberry: Jenkins failed to present federal due‑process claim to state courts; Board had authority under state law	Court: Jenkins procedurally defaulted due to failure to fairly present the federal claim; habeas denied
Whether Board arbitrarily applied parole statutes/rules in revoking parole and imposing a 180‑month sanction	Jenkins: Board unreasonably revoked parole given circumstances of the violation	Amsberry: claim was raised only as state‑law issue in state appeal and thus not fairly presented as federal due‑process claim	Court: procedural default bars federal review; even if considered, court referenced lack of entitlement to relief per related opinion

Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (federal habeas requires exhaustion of available state remedies)
Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446 (2000) (claims not fairly presented in proper procedural context are not exhausted)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (procedural default bars federal review absent cause and prejudice or actual innocence)
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982) (a petitioner cannot bypass state courts simply because he expects unfavorable treatment there)
Casey v. Moore, 386 F.3d 896 (9th Cir. 2004) (fair presentation requires presenting federal claim in the manner required by state courts)
Gray v. Netherland, 518 U.S. 152 (1996) (cause and prejudice standard for overcoming procedural default)