Parker v. Dowling
664 F. App'x 681
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Alvin Parker was convicted in Oklahoma of second-degree murder and sought commutation from the Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board; the Board denied relief.
- Parker filed a federal habeas petition asserting the Board’s denial violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights because it was arbitrary and lacked an impartial investigation.
- The district court treated the petition as filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and noted a jurisdictional dispute whether only the district of confinement or also the district of sentencing may hear such petitions when a state has multiple federal districts.
- The district court “took a peek” at the merits to decide whether transfer would be in the interests of justice and concluded Parker’s due process claim was “clearly doomed.”
- The court found no protected liberty interest in commutation under Oklahoma law (commutation is discretionary with the Governor), dismissed the petition, and denied a certificate of appealability (COA) and IFP status on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under § 2241 | Parker sought relief in the district of confinement; district should adjudicate § 2241 petitions | Some Tenth Circuit precedent limits jurisdiction to district of confinement; others permit concurrent jurisdiction when state has multiple districts | Court avoided deciding the conflict because outcome the same either way; dismissed on merits/for being clearly doomed |
| Right to be considered for commutation (Due Process) | Parker: denial and lack of impartial investigation violated Fourteenth Amendment | State: commutation is discretionary under Oklahoma law; no constitutionally protected liberty interest | Held: no protected liberty interest in commutation; due process claim fails |
| Appropriateness of transfer vs dismissal | Parker implied transfer might be proper if lacking jurisdiction | District: may transfer in interests of justice but may first "peek" at merits and dismiss a plainly doomed petition | Held: district properly declined transfer after finding claim clearly doomed and dismissed petition |
| Certificate of appealability (COA) standard | Parker contended reasonable jurists could debate resolution | State: petition lacked merit; reasonable jurists would not debate | Held: COA denied; Parker failed to make substantial showing of denial of constitutional right |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164 (10th Cir. 1996) (discusses jurisdiction over § 2241 petitions and district-of-confinement rule)
- Phillips v. Kaiser, [citation="47 F. App'x 507"] (10th Cir. 2002) (unpublished panel discussion cited re: taking a peek and jurisdictional practice)
- Ward v. Province, [citation="283 F. App'x 615"] (10th Cir. 2008) (holds no liberty interest in commutation under Oklahoma law)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standard for granting a certificate of appealability)