Eaves v. Stancil
25-1062
10th Cir.Jun 3, 2025Background
- Rodney Eaves, a Colorado prisoner convicted of aggravated robbery and related offenses, was sentenced to 30 years and ordered to pay over $40,000 in restitution, including to an insurer.
- Eaves previously filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas application, which was denied. He later sought state post-conviction relief regarding the restitution order without success.
- In 2024, Eaves filed a new federal application under § 2241, challenging the restitution order on three state-law grounds.
- The state argued the § 2241 application was in fact an unauthorized second or successive § 2254 application and thus the federal court lacked jurisdiction.
- The district court agreed and dismissed the application for lack of jurisdiction or, alternatively, as untimely. Eaves sought a certificate of appealability (COA).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the application is properly brought under § 2241 or § 2254 | Eaves claims challenges relate to sentence execution | State asserts claims challenge sentence validity | Court found Eaves was challenging validity, not execution; claims must proceed under § 2254 |
| Whether claims are second or successive under § 2254 | Argues claim wasn’t ripe at time of first petition | State says claims existed before first application | Court held claims were ripe with first petition, making them second or successive |
| Whether claim three states violation of a constitutional right | Cites Fourteenth Amendment due process, by reference | Argues claim only alleges state law violations | Court found no facial federal constitutional claim stated |
| Whether Eaves can raise new constitutional theories on appeal | Raises new due process/ex post facto/Eighth Amend. | State objects to considering new theories | Court refused to consider new, unraised claims in COA application |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (sets the standard for issuing a certificate of appealability when a petition is dismissed on procedural grounds)
- Leatherwood v. Allbaugh, 861 F.3d 1034 (10th Cir. 2017) (federal habeas relief is not available to correct state law errors)
- In re Cline, 531 F.3d 1249 (10th Cir. 2008) (absent circuit authorization, district courts lack jurisdiction over second or successive § 2254 applications)
- Paredes v. Atherton, 224 F.3d 1160 (10th Cir. 2000) (in COA review, court looks only at the face of the complaint for federal constitutional claims)