Bird v. Wyoming Attorney General
712 F. App'x 742
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Chester Bird, serving concurrent life sentences in Wyoming (ineligible for parole), challenged two 2010 statutes: one making life prisoners ineligible for parole and another mandating that 10% of prison-work income be placed in a savings account to be distributed on parole or discharge.
- Life-sentence prisoners in Wyoming are ineligible for parole but may seek commutation or pardon; life-without-parole prisoners cannot be paroled or commuted.
- Bird sued in Wyoming state court seeking declaratory relief, arguing the mandatory-savings statute implied parole eligibility and that treating life prisoners differently violated equal protection; the state district court dismissed his claims.
- The Wyoming Supreme Court affirmed, holding a rational basis supported (1) requiring life prisoners to save for the remote contingency of commutation and (2) distinguishing life and term-of-years prisoners for parole eligibility.
- Bird filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition in federal court; the district court dismissed the savings claim without prejudice as improperly brought in § 2241 (should be § 1983) and dismissed the parole-eligibility equal-protection claim without prejudice for failure to exhaust state remedies.
- Bird sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit to challenge the dismissal of the § 2241 parole-eligibility claim; the Tenth Circuit denied the COA, applying rational-basis review and finding no debatable equal-protection violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mandatory-savings statute violates equal protection by treating life prisoners like release-eligible prisoners | Bird: Mandatory savings implies parole/release eligibility; denying parole while forcing savings is irrational | State: Savings addresses the remote contingency of commutation; life and life-without-parole prisoners differ materially | State courts: rational basis supports savings for life prisoners; no equal-protection violation |
| Whether statute making life prisoners ineligible for parole violates equal protection compared to term-of-years prisoners | Bird: Life prisoners are similarly situated to term-of-years prisoners and denying parole is unconstitutional | State: Life prisoners are not similarly situated; life sentences reflect more severe offenses and legitimate legislative distinctions | Tenth Circuit: rational-basis review applies; classification is rational; no equal-protection violation |
| Whether dismissal of parole-eligibility claim for failure to exhaust state remedies was improper | Bird: Federal habeas (§ 2241) is proper to challenge parole-eligibility denial | State: Bird failed to exhaust state remedies; dismissal without prejudice was correct | Tenth Circuit: dismissal for non-exhaustion was not debatable; COA denied |
| Whether COA should issue on procedural dismissal of § 2241 petition | Bird: Claims substantial constitutional denial meriting COA | State: Petitioner must show debatable constitutional claim and debatable procedural error; he did not | Tenth Circuit: Petitioner failed both prongs; COA denied and appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir.) (COA required to appeal denial of § 2241 relief)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263 (Equal-protection challenges to prison-sentence distinctions reviewed under rational-basis)
- Kay v. Bemis, 500 F.3d 1214 (pro se habeas filings construed liberally)
- Reedy v. Werholtz, 660 F.3d 1270 (10th Cir.) (questioning rational basis for mandatory savings for life prisoners)
- Bird v. Wyo. Bd. of Parole, 382 P.3d 56 (Wyo. 2016) (Wyoming Supreme Court decision upholding savings statute and parole-eligibility distinction)