573 F. App'x 754
10th Cir.2014Background
- Counts, a Wyoming state prisoner, sought a COA to appeal a district court order granting summary judgment dismissing his habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241.
- Counts challenged a disciplinary proceeding arising from a 2013 inmate assault, including a rehearing after initial findings and the denial of several witnesses.
- The second disciplinary hearing found Counts guilty of conspiracy to assault, resulting in 60 days administrative segregation (most already served) and procedures that affected his good-time credits.
- The Deputy Warden later downgraded the MJ13P charge to MJ13, reducing the loss of good-time credits from twelve to three months and affecting Counts’ calculation of credit.
- Counts’ §2241 petition argued due process violations based on lack of neutrality at the rehearing and denial of requested witnesses; the district court granted summary judgment for Respondents, denying habeas relief and COA.
- Counts’ COA request to proceed on appeal was denied by the district court and by this court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Counts had a liberty interest triggering due process | Counts asserts a liberty interest via good-time loss and segregation. | Counts had no constitutionally protected liberty interest in good time credits or segregation. | No liberty interest implicated; due process not violated. |
| Whether non-neutrality and witness denial violated due process | Rehearing by a non-neutral officer and denial of requested witnesses violated due process. | Discretionary hearing conditions do not automatically violate due process; witness exclusions permissible. | No due process violation found; proceedings upheld. |
| Whether Counts should be awarded a COA on appeal | Counts seeks reversal and relief on habeas grounds; COA should issue. | No substantial showing of a constitutional right denial; COA not warranted. | COA denied; appeal not allowed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209 (Supreme Court 2005) (liberty interests may arise from state statutes/policies in confinement contexts)
- Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (Supreme Court 1974) (discipline in prison implicates due process when liberty interest exists)
- Penrod v. Zavaras, 94 F.3d 1399 (10th Cir. 1996) (no liberty interest created by prison regulations allowing administrative segregation)
- Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (Supreme Court 1995) (liberty interests are limited to atypical, significant hardship relative to ordinary prison life)
- Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (no liberty interest in discretionary good-time credits)
- Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073 (5th Cir. 1997) (good-time credits are a privilege, not a right, under state law)
- Allen v. Zavaras, 568 F.3d 1197 (10th Cir. 2009) (affirmative limits on liberty interest in earned credits under §2241 context)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court 2000) (COA standard: substantial showing of denial of a constitutional right)