United States District Court, D. Montana, Helena Division
SCOTT C. ANDERSON Petitioner,
MONTANA BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MONTANA; Respondents.
ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Johnston United States Magistrate Judge.
7, 2019, Petitioner Scott C. Anderson, a state prisoner
proceeding pro se, filed a petition for habeas corpus relief
pursuant 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (Doc. 1 at 8.)
Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis
Anderson seeks leave of the Court to proceed in forma
pauperis. See, (Doc. 2.) After reviewing the motion and
supporting account statement, Anderson has sufficiently shown
he cannot afford to pay all costs that may be associated with
this action. The motion to proceed in forma pauperis will be
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition
explained more fully below, because Anderson's current
claims are unexhausted, his petition should be dismissed
was apparently released on parole on January 15, 2019, but
was taken back into custody for the purported violations on
March 9, 2019. (Doc. 1 at 13-14.) According to Anderson, on
April 3, 2019, a parole revocation hearing was held.
Id. at 4, ¶13(A). Anderson asserts that the
punishment he received for the violations was excessive. It
appears Anderson was removed from
semi-restricted/transitional housing center for violating
curfew and that a determination was made that he should
complete additional Sexual Offender Programming (SOP).
Id. at 3, ¶3. Anderson claims the SOP
requirement is unlawful because he is not currently being
supervised in Montana for a sexual offense and that it was
previously determined that he required no further treatment.
Id. at 5, ¶13(B). Anderson acknowledges he was
convicted of spousal rape in Idaho in 2001. Id.; see
also, (Doc. 1-1 at 1.)
contends that in revoking his parole, the Board of Pardons
and Parole did not consider his current family situation.
(Doc. 1 at 9.) Apparently, Anderson's current wife is ill
and in need of assistance; Anderson had been gainfully
employed and providing his income and health benefits to his
family. Id. Anderson claims his unique circumstances
were not taken into account and alternative sanctions were
not considered or exhausted. Id. at 11.
asks this Court to either order a new revocation hearing or
impose the parole conditions previously set by the state
district court in Cause No. DC-15-543. Id. at
preliminary matter it is unclear if Anderson intended to file
this action in Federal District Court, or if he actually
meant his filing for state district court. He makes several
references to a "district court judge" and
"appealing to a state court." See e.g., (Doc. 1 at
5, 10.) Additionally, the in forma pauperis application
Anderson completed is captioned for state court. See, (Doc. 2
extent he intended to file in this Court, Anderson is advised
that federal district courts, as courts of original
jurisdiction, do not serve as appellate tribunals to review
errors allegedly committed by state courts. MacKay v.
Pfeil, 827 F.2d 540, 543 (9th Cir. 1987);
see also Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Brotherhood of
Locomotive Engineers, 398 U.S. 281, 296
(1970)("lower federal courts possess no power whatever
to sit in direct review of state court decisions").
Federal habeas relief is available only for violations of
federal law. "[A] district court shall entertain an
application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person
in custody pursuant to a judgment of a State court only on
the ground that he is in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."
28 U.S.C. §2254(a). "[F]ederal habeas corpus relief
does not lie for errors of state law." Estelle v.
McGuire, 502 U.S. 62, 67 (1991)(citations omitted).
for the sake of argument that Anderson can advance colorable
federal claims, his petition should be dismissed because any
claim he seeks to advance relative to his current custody has
not yet been exhausted ...