Chapman v. Lampert
711 F. App'x 455
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Chapman, a Wyoming state prisoner serving 25–50 years for attempted second-degree murder, wrote a letter complaining about being housed with a sex offender and said violent consequences were possible.
- WDOC charged Chapman with an MJ-24 disciplinary violation (threatening imminent or lasting harm) and, after a hearing, found him guilty.
- WDOC prospectively suspended Chapman's ability to earn good-time credit for a limited period (3 months for the MJ-24; prior 2011 violations had resulted in a 9-month suspension). No previously awarded credits were taken away.
- Chapman filed a § 2241 habeas petition claiming (1) due-process violation because WDOC withheld good-time credit without proper liberty-interest protections and (2) the MJ-24 charge was retaliatory for threatening to sue.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants, denied Chapman relief, and declined a COA; Chapman sought a COA from the Tenth Circuit.
- The Tenth Circuit denied a COA, holding reasonable jurists could not debate the district court’s conclusions on both due process and retaliation claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Wyoming created a protected liberty interest in earning good-time credit | Chapman: WDOC granted then removed good-time credit, depriving him of a liberty interest without due process | WDOC: Good-time is discretionary under state law/policy; only a prospective suspension occurred, not removal of earned credit | Held: No liberty interest—Wyoming law and WDOC policy make good-time discretionary; Chapman lost no previously awarded credit |
| Whether the MJ-24 charge was retaliatory for exercising rights (threat to sue) | Chapman: Charge was false and issued in retaliation for threatening to sue WDOC | WDOC: Charge based on Chapman’s letter and supported by disciplinary finding; proper due process provided | Held: No viable retaliation claim—Chapman failed to show ‘‘but-for’’ retaliatory motive and disciplinary finding supported the charge |
Key Cases Cited
- Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759 (2017) (COA standard: jurists of reason could disagree or issues deserve encouragement to proceed)
- Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322 (2003) (standard for granting a certificate of appealability)
- Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983) (liberty interests arise from Constitution or state law)
- Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (no liberty interest when earned/ good time credits are discretionary)
- McIntosh v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 115 F.3d 809 (10th Cir. 1997) (§ 2241 proper vehicle for prison-execution challenges such as good-time credits)
- Peterson v. Shanks, 149 F.3d 1140 (10th Cir. 1998) (retaliation requires proof that, but for retaliatory motive, the action would not have occurred)