F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
JAN 23 2001
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
BRYAN R. RAMER,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 00-5110
(D.C. No. 97-CV-383-B)
RITA MAXWELL, (N.D. Okla.)
Respondent-Appellee.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *
Before EBEL , KELLY , and LUCERO , 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)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
Petitioner Bryan R. Ramer seeks a certificate of appealability (COA)
permitting him to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition
*
This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the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.
for a writ of habeas corpus. Having determined that Mr. Ramer has failed to
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” as required
by 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), we deny his request and dismiss the appeal.
In 1978, Mr. Ramer was convicted in state court of kidnapping and armed
robbery. After accepting his guilty plea, the court sentenced Mr. Ramer to two
ten-year terms on the kidnapping charges and two twenty-five year sentences on
the armed robbery charges, to run concurrently. In 1983, Mr. Ramer escaped
from prison by not returning from a pass. He was apprehended the next day
following a “shoot out” with New Mexico law enforcement officers. He remained
in jail in New Mexico until 1992 serving the resulting sentences. In 1984,
Oklahoma placed a detainer on him. Thus, upon service of the New Mexico
sentences, Mr. Ramer was returned to Oklahoma.
When Mr. Ramer returned to Oklahoma, a prison misconduct report was
served on him charging him with escape. 1
A hearing was held and Mr. Ramer was
found guilty of escape. Consequently, all his earned good time credits were
revoked.
Mr. Ramer then commenced this habeas action. In his complaint, he
alleged he was denied due process because he did not receive adequate notice of
the impending administrative charges stemming from his escape and he was
1
No state charges of escape were filed.
-2-
denied an impartial tribunal at the hearing on those charges. Mr. Ramer also
alleged his sentence has been increased due to the ex post facto application of
various new laws. He stated when he was sentenced, Oklahoma awarded good
time credits to inmates who donated blood. Those credits were later discontinued
and Mr. Ramer alleged he was denied credits he otherwise could have received
had he been permitted to donate blood and had the law not changed. Mr. Ramer
also alleged that at the time of his 1978 conviction, any credits lost due to
misconduct reports were to be restored after six months of clear conduct, while
currently no inmate convicted of a violent crime can have his credits restored.
Mr. Ramer noted that, at the time he was sentenced, he would have been eligible
for a public works program if he had not had an escape on his record for the past
ten years counting from the date of the escape. Current policy counts the ten
years from the date the inmate is served with the misconduct report, in his case
approximately nine years after the escape. Finally, Mr. Ramer alleged he was not
given credit for the nine days he was incarcerated by the transport company when
he was transferred back to the Oklahoma prison system and he was erroneously
sent to a maximum security unit where he was not permitted to work and earn
good time credits. Mr. Ramer concluded that the Oklahoma Department of
Corrections (ODOC) had refused to properly administer his sentence and to
properly credit his good time credits.
-3-
The district court construed Mr. Ramer’s complaint as being filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 and dismissed all the claims except two for failure to exhaust. The
case continued on Mr. Ramer’s claims that his due process rights had been
violated because he did not receive adequate notice of the pending escape charges
and had been denied an impartial tribunal, and that he had been subjected to ex
post facto laws because his sentence had been increased when his earned credits
were totally revoked and credits were denied for donating blood. The district
court determined that no violations had occurred and denied relief.
On appeal, Mr. Ramer argues that he did not get adequate notice that
Oklahoma was planning to charge him with escape upon his return to the state.
He contends that the doctrine of latches prevents Oklahoma from prosecuting the
misconduct report. Mr. Ramer also asserts that the hearing committee was biased
because it refused to let him present his defense. Mr. Ramer also raises several
ex post facto issues claiming the ODOC (1) increased the number of earned
credits that could be revoked for a rule violation after he committed the crimes of
which he was convicted, but before he violated the rules and (2) eliminated his
ability to earn good time credits by donating blood.
First, we must examine whether this action is properly considered as one
taken pursuant to § 2254 or § 2241. Habeas review is available under § 2241
when an inmate seeks to attack the execution of a sentence, rather than to
-4-
collaterally attack the validity of a conviction and sentence, an action properly
brought pursuant to § 2254. McIntosh v. United States Parole Comm’n , 115 F.3d
809, 811 (10th Cir. 1997). “[A] § 2241 action challenging prison disciplinary
proceedings, such as the deprivation of good-time credits, . . . is challenging an
action affecting the fact or duration of the petitioner’s custody.” Id. at 812.
Thus, Mr. Ramer’s petition is more properly construed as having been brought
under § 2241.
A state prisoner, such as Mr. Ramer, “must obtain a COA to appeal the
denial of a habeas petition, whether such petition was filed pursuant to § 2254 or
§ 2241, whenever ‘the detention complained of [in the petition] arises out of
process issued by a State court.’” Montez v. McKinna , 208 F.3d 862, 867 (10th
Cir. 2000) (quoting § 2253(c)(1)(A)). To obtain a COA, a habeas petitioner must
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right [which]
includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether . . . the petition
should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were
adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Slack v. McDaniel , 120
S. Ct. 1595, 1603-04 (2000) (quotations omitted).
We have reviewed the district court’s judgment in light of Mr. Ramer’s
submissions to this court and the record on appeal. We agree that Mr. Ramer has
failed to establish that the state court decision “was contrary to, or involved an
-5-
unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the
Supreme Court of the United States,” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1), or “was based on
an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in
the State court proceeding,” id. § 2254(d)(2).
We DENY Mr. Ramer’s request for a certificate of appealability and
DISMISS this appeal. Mr. Ramer’s two motions to supplement and amend his
petition are DENIED. Mr. Ramer’s motion to order the district court to comply
with appellate rules is DENIED. Mr. Ramer’s motion to withdraw his motion to
order the district court to comply with appellate rules is DENIED as moot. The
mandate shall issue forthwith.
Entered for the Court
Paul J. Kelly, Jr.
Circuit Judge
-6-