FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
January 31, 2011
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
TENTH CIRCUIT
JERRY L. THOMAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
No. 10-6193
v. (W.D. Oklahoma)
(D.C. No. 5:10-CV-00110-W)
DAVID C. MILLER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE
OF APPEALABILITY
Before MURPHY, GORSUCH, and HOLMES, Circuit Judges.
Jerry L. Thomas, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks to appeal the
district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The matter is before this
court on Thomas’s request for a certificate of appealability (“COA”). See
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing no appeal may be taken from a “final order
in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of
process issued by a State court” unless the petitioner first obtains a COA); Montez
v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862, 869 (10th Cir. 2000) (holding that the requirements of
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) apply when the state habeas petitioner is proceeding under
§ 2241). Because Thomas has not made a “substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right,” this court denies his request for a COA and dismisses this
appeal. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (providing that a COA “may issue . . . only if the
applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right”). 1
In his § 2241 petition, Thomas challenged, nominally on due process
grounds, the results of prison disciplinary proceedings which resulted in the loss
of earned good-time credits. The matter was referred to a magistrate judge,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), for initial proceedings. In a comprehensive
report and recommendation, the magistrate judge concluded Thomas’s claims
should be denied because they are not cognizable in a § 2241 habeas corpus
proceeding. In particular, the magistrate judge noted Thomas’s assertion
Oklahoma state courts misapplied Oklahoma state law did not raise a valid claim
of a violation of the United States Constitution. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U.S. 62,
67-68 (1991) (“[I]t is not the province of a federal habeas court to reexamine
state-court determinations on state-law questions. In conducting habeas review, a
federal court is limited to deciding whether a conviction violated the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States.”). Furthermore, the magistrate judge
concluded that the motivations underlying the bringing of a misconduct complaint
against Thomas did not bear on the dispositive legal question of whether
Thomas’s disciplinary proceedings ultimately complied with the dictates of Wolff
1
Because Thomas has not made a reasoned, nonfrivolous argument, we
deny his request to proceed on appeal without prepayment of fees. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i); DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502, 505 (10th Cir. 1991).
Thomas shall, therefore, make full and immediate payment of the appellate filing
fee.
-2-
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) and Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,
454 (1985). Because Thomas’s prison disciplinary proceedings undeniably
complied with Wolff and Hill, the magistrate judge concluded Thomas was not
entitled to habeas relief. Upon de novo review, the district court adopted the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denied Thomas’s § 2241
petition.
A COA may issue if Thomas “has made a substantial showing of the denial
of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). To make this showing, he
must demonstrate “reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter,
agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the
issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.”
Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003) (quotation omitted). In
evaluating a request for a COA, it is not the role of this court to engage in a “full
consideration of the factual or legal bases adduced in support of the claims.” Id.
Instead, this court undertakes “a preliminary, though not definitive, consideration
of the [legal] framework” applicable to each claim. Id. at 338. Thomas is not
required to demonstrate that his appeal will succeed to be entitled to a COA. He
must, however, “prove something more than the absence of frivolity or the
existence of mere good faith.” Id. (quotations omitted).
This court has reviewed Thomas’s appellate filings, the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation, the district court’s order, and the entire record on
-3-
appeal pursuant to the framework set out by the Supreme Court in Miller-El and
concludes Thomas is not entitled to a COA. The district court’s resolution of
Thomas’s petition is not reasonably subject to debate and the claims he seeks to
raise on appeal are not adequate to deserve further proceedings. Accordingly,
Thomas has not “made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right” and is not entitled to a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).
This court DENIES Thomas’s request for a COA and DISMISSES this
appeal.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Michael R. Murphy
Circuit Judge
-4-