Martin v. Bear
683 F. App'x 729
| 10th Cir. | 2017Background
- Dennis Martin, a state prisoner in Oklahoma, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition asserting wrongful incarceration and related claims (access to courts, due process, and state constitutional violations).
- Martin claimed he had never been arrested, charged, tried, or convicted and that no judgment or sentence existed for him.
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition without prejudice, concluding Martin’s claims were not cognizable under § 2241; it denied reconsideration and did not grant a COA.
- Martin sought a certificate of appealability (COA) from the Tenth Circuit to appeal the dismissal.
- The Tenth Circuit took judicial notice of Martin’s 1985 Oklahoma conviction for first-degree murder and life sentence (State v. Martin, CRF-84-169).
- The panel determined Martin’s challenge attacked the validity of his conviction (the fact of confinement), not the execution of his sentence, and thus was inappropriate for § 2241 relief.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 2241 may be used to challenge Martin’s incarceration | Martin: He was never arrested, charged, tried, or convicted; no record of judgment or sentence exists | State: Martin was convicted in 1985; § 2241 attacks execution of sentence, not its validity | Held: § 2241 is improper; challenge attacks conviction’s validity and is not cognizable under § 2241 |
| Whether a COA should issue for appeal of § 2241 dismissal | Martin: Issues deserve review; factual assertion of no conviction | State: Dismissal not debatable given record of conviction | Held: COA denied — no substantial, debatable issue warranting appeal |
| Whether Martin may proceed IFP on appeal | Martin: Seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis | State: No reasoned, nonfrivolous argument shown | Held: IFP denied due to lack of nonfrivolous argument |
Key Cases Cited
- Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir.) (COA required for appeal of § 2241 denial)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (Sup. Ct.) (standard for issuing a COA)
- Prost v. Anderson, 636 F.3d 578 (10th Cir.) (§ 2241 generally addresses execution, not validity, of confinement)
- Brace v. United States, 634 F.3d 1167 (10th Cir.) (clarifying § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence rather than its validity)
- DeBardeleben v. Quinlan, 937 F.2d 502 (10th Cir.) (standard for denying IFP where appeal lacks nonfrivolous argument)