Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Ahlgrim v. Franco

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

May 15, 2018

DAKOTA CLAY AHLGRIM, Petitioner,
v.
GERMAN FRANCO, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          ROBERT C. BRACK, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         THIS MATTER is before the Court under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Proceedings on the Petition Under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 For Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by Petitioner Dakota Clay Ahlgrim on March 21, 2017 (Doc. 1). The Court will dismiss the Petition.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         Petitioner Dakota Clay Ahlgrim was convicted on several state criminal charges and is a prisoner incarcerated at the Penitentiary of New Mexico. (Doc. 1 at 1.) See State of New Mexico Nos. D-116-CR-2009-00265, D-1333-CR-2010-00110. In this case, Ahlgrim does not contest his state court criminal convictions or sentences. Instead, he seeks habeas relief from alleged deprivation of good time credits by the New Mexico Department of Corrections. (Id.)

         Ahlgrim filed his § 2254 Petition on March 21, 2017. (See id.) In his Petition, Ahlgrim claims he was deprived of good time credits in violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. (Id. at 2-3.) Ahlgrim alleges:

Was deprived of more than 327 plus days of good-time credits through Prison Disciplinary Process for legitimate use of Prison Emergency grievance Procedure on one-report and without any evidence on second report. On second report, preponderence of evidence was in favor of Petitioner. On first report, NMCD grievance procedure/policy prohibited any action against Petitioner. In both reports, all relevant Prison officials acted maliciously and were fully aware that what they were doing violated Petitioner's rights.

(Id. at 3.)

         Prior to filing in this Court, Petitioner Ahlgrim filed a habeas corpus petition in state court. (Id. at 2.) Ahlgrim's Petition indicates that he raised the same due process issue in his state habeas corpus case. (Id. at 2, ¶ 11(a)(5).) Ahlgrim did not attach copies of the filings in his state habeas corpus proceeding to his Petition in this case. However, the Court has reviewed the official New Mexico state court record in Ahlgrim's state court proceedings through the New Mexico Supreme Court's Secured Online Public Access (SOPA) and takes judicial notice of the court records in Ahlgrim's habeas corpus case, State of New Mexico, County of Santa Fe, First Judicial District case no. D-101-CV-2015-01371. See United States v. Ahidley, 486 F.3d 1184, 1192 n.5 (10th Cir. 2007) (The Court may take judicial notice of publicly filed records in this court and other courts concerning matters that bear directly upon the disposition of the case at hand); Shoulders v. Dinwiddie, No. CR 12-0128 JB, 2006 WL 2792671 (W.D. Okla. 2006) (court may take judicial notice of state court records available on the world wide web including docket sheets in district courts); Stack v. McCotter, No. 02-4157, 2003 WL 22422416 (10th Cir. 2003) (finding state district court's docket sheet is an official court record subject to judicial notice under Fed.R.Evid. 201).

         In his state Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed May 26, 2015, Ahlgrim claimed “Violation of Due Process/Procedural Due Process Resulting in Wrongful and Unlawful Deprivation and Denial of Good Time Credits.” (Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus at 1.) Following a state court order to do so, Ahlgrim filed an Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus that included the prison administrative record of his prison grievance proceedings. (Am. Pet. for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed Sept. 17, 2015.) The record of the disciplinary proceedings indicates that Ahlgrim was charged with a major disciplinary violation for threatening a correctional officer. Ahlgrim had submitted a grievance to the prison grievance officer against a correctional officer, Sergeant Urtiaga. (N.M. Corr. Dep't Inmate Grievance, Attachment A: Emergency Grievance, May 30, 2014.) Ahlgrim's Emergency Grievance concludes “I will exercise my right to defend myself by the command of Allah (SWT) in Surah 2, Ayahs 190-194”. (Emergency Grievance, May 30, 2014).

         The Inmate Misconduct Report by the prison grievance officer states:

On this date June 3, 2014 at approximately 10:40 am, it became known to me that inmate Dakota Ahlgrim NMCD #71109 threatened Sergeant Urtiaga with bodily harm. While inmate Ahlgrim did not state exactly what he would do to Sergeant Urtiaga, his intentions to fight or kill Sergeant Urtiaga are clear upon reading the translation taken from Surah 2, Ayahs 190-194 which inmate Ahlgrim quoted in his grievance.

(Inmate Misconduct Report, June 3, 2014.) The translation of Surah 2, Ayahs 190-194 quoted by Ahlgrim includes the following statement:

2.191. Kill them whenever you confront them and drive them out from where they drove you out. (For though killing is sinful) wrongful persecution is even worse than killing. Do not fight against them near the Holy Mosque unless they fight against you; but if they fight against you kill them, for that is the reward of such unbelievers.

(Inmate Misconduct Report, June 3, 2014, attached Selections from the Holy Quran.) A Disciplinary Officer conducted an investigation and recommended a major level hearing. A Hearing Officer held the Major Level Disciplinary Hearing on June 12, 2014. Ahlgrim appeared, submitted a motion to dismiss, and presented testimony and documentary evidence. (N.M. Corr. Dep't Disciplinary Summ. of Evid. & Proceedings, June 13, 2014.) Based on the evidence presented, the Hearing Officer found Ahlgrim guilty of the charged major disciplinary violation and recommended loss of all goodtime credits. (N.M. Corr. Dep't Disciplinary Decision, June 13, 2014.) Ahlgrim signed a statement that he had been advised of his rights during the course of the Disciplinary Hearing and fully understood everything. (N.M. Corr. Dep't ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.