Sollis v. Trani
669 F. App'x 508
| 10th Cir. | 2016Background
- Scott A. Sollis, a Colorado state inmate proceeding pro se, sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 challenging CDOC’s calculation/application of good-time credits and alleging inadequate legal assistance from the prison law librarian.
- The district court dismissed the § 2241 petition, concluding (1) Colorado’s good-time credits are discretionary under state law, so no protected liberty interest arises, and (2) even if credits were misapplied, habeas relief would not necessarily produce immediate or speedier release. The court also treated the legal-assistance claim as improper for § 2241.
- Sollis requested a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal.
- The Tenth Circuit panel considered whether reasonable jurists could debate the district court’s legal conclusions under Slack/Barefoot COA standards.
- The panel affirmed denial of COA and dismissed the appeal, finding the district court’s conclusions not reasonably debatable and noting the proper avenues for challenges to conditions of confinement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Colorado inmates have a constitutionally protected liberty interest in good-time credits | Sollis: CDOC’s failure to properly apply good-time credits deprived him of due process | CDOC: Colorado law makes awarding good-time credits discretionary, so no liberty interest exists | Held: No federal liberty interest—Colorado’s scheme is discretionary; no due process violation established |
| Whether a favorable ruling would entitle Sollis to immediate or speedier release (habeas remedy requirement) | Sollis: Correcting credits would affect his confinement status | CDOC: Good-time credits affect parole eligibility, not automatic release, so habeas relief would not necessarily shorten confinement | Held: Even if credits were corrected, relief would not guarantee immediate or speedier release; habeas relief therefore inappropriate |
| Whether a claim about inadequate legal-assistance from the law librarian is cognizable in § 2241 | Sollis: Librarian’s failure to provide complete legal info violated due process | CDOC: Such a conditions/assistance challenge is not a proper § 2241 habeas claim | Held: Claim is not properly brought in § 2241; should be pursued, if at all, under § 1983 or other appropriate vehicle |
| Whether a certificate of appealability should issue | Sollis: Reasonable jurists could debate resolution of his claims | CDOC/District Court: The legal conclusions are not reasonably debatable under governing precedent | Held: COA denied; appeal dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1 (1979) (no federal liberty interest in parole/GCT absent state-created mandatory language)
- Bd. of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987) (state law can create vested liberty interest only with mandatory language)
- Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475 (1973) (challenges to conditions of confinement generally brought under § 1983, not habeas)
- Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000) (standards for issuing a certificate of appealability)
- Montez v. McKinna, 208 F.3d 862 (10th Cir. 2000) (state prisoners must obtain COA to appeal denial of § 2241 relief)
- Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006) (Colorado’s discretionary credit scheme does not create a liberty interest)
- Boutwell v. Keating, 399 F.3d 1203 (10th Cir. 2005) (habeas relief appropriate only where remedy would result in immediate or speedier release)
- Jones v. Martinez, 799 P.2d 385 (Colo. 1990) (good-time/earned-time that equals sentence entitles inmate to consideration for parole, not unconditional release)