Stewart v. Board of Pardons and Parole, 360 P.3d 800

Calvin Paul Stewart was convicted in 2003 on 25 felony counts and ordered to pay over $6 million in restitution; he remains incarcerated.
Stewart filed an extraordinary-relief petition under Utah R. Civ. P. 65B challenging the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole’s January 16, 2014 parole hearing and related matters.
His claims included: denial of due process from receiving some hearing documents shortly before the hearing; imprisonment for debt/statute of limitations on restitution; equal protection violations based on disparate treatment of co-defendants; and that his long incarceration was unjustified.
The district court dismissed as frivolous all claims except the procedural due process claim about the January 16, 2014 hearing, and later granted summary judgment for the Board on that remaining claim.
Relevant facts at the hearing: Stewart received a packet on December 27, 2013; additional victim documents arrived January 10, 2014 and were brought to the January 16 hearing; Stewart affirmed he had received and reviewed the materials, did not request a continuance, and fully participated; the hearing officer averred inmates typically had 30 minutes to several hours to review materials brought to the hearing.
The court affirmed the district court’s rulings in all respects.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Warden Bigelow had to be named as a party	Warden is Stewart’s physical custodian and thus must be named	Petition under Rule 65B challenged Board actions only; warden not proper party	Warden properly dismissed
Whether restitution constitutes "debt" causing imprisonment or is time-barred	Restitution is a debt; statute of limitations has run	Restitution is a remedial consequence of conviction, not a "debt"; restitution judgment remains until paid	Claim frivolous; restitution not "debt" and judgment survives until full payment
Whether equal protection / collateral attacks on convictions were permitted in 65B petition	Stewart argues others involved were treated differently so convictions/penalties violate Equal Protection and Utah due process	Challenges to convictions are collateral and must be pursued via appropriate post-conviction procedures, not a Rule 65B challenge to the Board	Claims dismissed as improper for this forum
Whether Stewart was denied procedural due process at the Jan 16, 2014 parole hearing	Receiving documents immediately before hearing denied reasonable opportunity to prepare	Stewart received prior packet, acknowledged receipt, did not request more time or a continuance, and participated; hearing officer allowed time to review	Summary judgment for Board; no due process violation

Monson v. Carver, 928 P.2d 1017 (Utah 1996) (restitution is remedial consequence of conviction and not a "debt" creating imprisonment-for-debt claim)
Preece v. House, 886 P.2d 508 (Utah 1994) (Board’s incarceration decision within an inmate’s indeterminate range is not arbitrary absent unusual circumstances)
Peterson v. Utah Bd. of Pardons, 931 P.2d 147 (Utah Ct. App. 1997) (inmate must inform the hearing officer and request additional time; Board need not continue when inmate declines more time)