Firth v. Raemisch
677 F. App'x 489
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Scott Firth, a Colorado state prisoner, filed a federal habeas petition raising three claims: entitlement to a definite prison term, entitlement to earned-time credits, and entitlement to discretionary parole.
- District court dismissed the § 2241 petition, concluding the first and third claims challenge the validity of his sentence (§ 2254), and denied relief on the earned-time credits claim.
- Firth previously filed a § 2254 petition that this court rejected (Firth v. Smelser).
- Because the sentence-validity claims are successive, Firth needed authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) to file a second or successive § 2254 application, which he did not demonstrate.
- On earned-time credits, Colorado law treats such credits as discretionary; thus, there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest under controlling Tenth Circuit precedent.
- The court denied a certificate of appealability (COA), requests to certify/interpret state-law questions, permission to file a successive habeas application, and in forma pauperis relief; Firth remains obligated to pay the filing fee.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claims about a definite term and parole challenge sentence validity or execution | Firth contends he is entitled to immediate relief (release) based on illegal sentence/parole entitlement | State argues these challenges attack the sentence itself and must be brought under § 2254 (and are successive) | Held: Claims challenge sentence validity, not execution; treated as § 2254 and successive — authorization denied |
| Whether Firth may file a second or successive § 2254 petition | Firth argues current petition should proceed despite prior § 2254 denial | State argues he must show new constitutional rule or new factual predicate under § 2244(b) | Held: Firth pointed to neither; authorization to file denied |
| Whether earned-time credits create a liberty interest under Colorado law | Firth argues he is entitled to earned-time credits and thus habeas relief | State relies on Colorado law and Tenth Circuit precedent that credits are discretionary | Held: No protected liberty interest; habeas relief unavailable |
| Whether COA should issue allowing appeal to proceed | Firth seeks COA to appeal district court dismissal | State argues reasonable jurists would not debate the dismissal | Held: COA denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (standard for certificate of appealability)
- Davis v. Roberts, 425 F.3d 830 (10th Cir. 2005) (distinguishing challenges to sentence validity from execution)
- Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (Colorado earned-time credits are discretionary; no liberty interest)
- Firth v. Smelser, [citation="403 F. App'x 321"] (10th Cir.) (prior § 2254 dismissal)