F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 28 1997
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
REUBEN LEE THOMAS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 96-5192
(D.C. No. 96-C-204-K)
DENISE SPEARS, Warden; ATTORNEY (N.D. Okla.)
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
OKLAHOMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this
appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. Therefore, the case is ordered
submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Reuben Thomas has filed an application for a certificate of appealability
to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for writ of habeas
corpus. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Petitioner is presently
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of
law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under
the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
incarcerated in Oklahoma following his 1986 conviction in state court. We conclude
petitioner has not made "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right"
under § 2253(c)(1)(A) and deny the certificate of appealability.
Petitioner challenges calculation of his good-time credits, arguing the method of
computation of such credits violates the ex post facto clause. He contends that during the
period of April 1989 until October 1991 he was wrongly classified under the 1988 version
of 57 O.S. § 138 in a credit class level that prevented earning good-time credits through
work. He also argues that work he did from October 1991 to May 1993 resulted in good-
time credits computed under the law then in effect rather than the law in effect at the time
the crime was committed, which would have allowed him three days' credit for each day
worked.
At the time petitioner committed the crime for which he is incarcerated, good-time
credits could be earned through work, school attendance, or participation in a vocational
training program. See 57 O.S.A. § 138, Historical and Statutory Notes. Service or
maintenance work for another state agency, county, or municipality performed by an
inmate under 57 O.S. § 224 earned an inmate three days' credit for each earned day of
service. See 57 O.S.A. § 224, Historical and Statutory Notes. In 1988, the statutes
governing good-time credits changed and credit was no longer based on work but on the
class to which a prisoner was assigned by an adjustment review committee. 57 O.S. §
138(B). Inmates classified in class one earned no credits; inmates in the other classes
earned 22 to 44 credits per month. 57 O.S. § 138(C)(2). Petitioner was placed in class
one in March 1989 and earned no credits from April 1989 until he advanced to class two
in January 1991.
-2-
Petitioner was convicted before the four-class system was enacted and he is
entitled to allowable credits under the law in effect on the date the crime giving rise to his
conviction was committed. State ex rel. Maynard v. Page, 798 P.2d 628 (Okla. Cr. App.
1990). Consequently, he can claim no liberty interest in any aspect of the four-class
system. His contention that other inmates' advancements to higher classes violated equal
protection principles is unconvincing. Petitioner does not allege discretionary decisions
regarding classifications are based on any suspect class. Therefore, to pass constitutional
muster, the challenged actions need only be reasonably related to some legitimate
penological purpose. Templeman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367, 371 (10th Cir. 1994). By
statute, classification decisions are based on a number of factors, including
"rehabilitation, obtaining job skills and other educational enhancement, participation in
and completion of alcohol/chemical abuse programs, incentives for inmates to accept
work assignments and jobs, work attendance and productivity, conduct record,
participation in programs, cooperative general behavior, and appearance." 57 O.S. §
138(B). In light of the deference this court must afford prison officials in executing their
discretionary judgments, see Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472 (1983), petitioner's
equal protection claim cannot stand.
Petitioner appears to contend that applying the class system rendered him
ineligible to work, depriving him of a liberty interest in the opportunity to earn good-time
credits. The law in effect at the time petitioner committed the offense for which he is
incarcerated did not guarantee an inmate the opportunity to work and earn good-time
credits. Gardner v. Benton, 452 F. Supp. 170 (1977). Thus, reclassifications that impact
eligibility for work do not deprive inmates of due process. Id.
-3-
Petitioner alleges the credit he was given for work from January 1991 to March
1993 was based on his class assignment rather than on the statutes in effect at the time he
committed the offense. He presents nothing to establish his good-time credits were not
computed in a manner at least as beneficial to him as the statutes then in effect. The
record is devoid of any showing that petitioner performed sufficient work during any
period in which he was assigned credit based on his class where he would have been
entitled to more credit under the prior system. The Oklahoma Department of Corrections
"now tabulates for each inmate how many credits he has earned under each version of the
statute [37 O.S. § 138] on a monthly basis and automatically awards the inmate the
greater of the two totals." Turnham v. Carr, 34 F.3d 1076 (10th Cir. 1994) (table). As
petitioner has made no showing that his credits were calculated in a way prejudicial to his
expectations, he has presented no substantial showing of any ex post facto violation. See
Devine v. New Mexico Dept. of Corrections, 866 F.2d 339, 341 (10th Cir. 1989) (ex post
facto law must disadvantage affected offender).
The application for a certificate of appealability is DENIED and this appeal is
DISMISSED. The mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
-4-