Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01380/USCOURTS-ca10-16-01380-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Cynthia Coffman
Appellee
Scott Firth
Appellant
Rick Raemisch
Appellee

Document Text:

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

February 13, 2017

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

SCOTT FIRTH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RICK RAEMISCH, Executive

Director for Colorado Department of

Corrections; CYNTHIA COFFMAN,

Attorney General for Colorado,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 16-1380

(D.C. No. 1:16-CV-00406-LTB)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY*

Before TYMKOVICH, Chief Judge, KELLY, and MATHESON, Circuit Judges.

Scott Firth, a Colorado state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s

dismissal of his application for a writ of habeas corpus. Firth raised three claims:

(1) entitlement to a definite prison term, (2) entitlement to earned-time credits,

and (3) entitlement to discretionary parole. The district court concluded that none

*

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination

of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order is not binding

precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and

collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent

with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.

Appellate Case: 16-1380 Document: 01019764241 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 1 
of the claims has merit. To pursue this appeal, Firth must obtain a certificate of

appealability (COA) from this court. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). That, in turn,

requires him to make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right,” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), by establishing “that reasonable jurists could

debate whether . . . the petition should have been resolved in a different manner

or that the issues presented were adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed

further,” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (internal quotation marks

omitted). He cannot meet these requirements. 

We agree with the district court that the first and third claims challenge the

validity of his sentence rather than the execution of it, and so are properly

considered under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 rather than 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Regardless of

his characterization, Firth’s underlying claim is that he deserves immediate

release because his current sentence is illegal. That claim thus challenges the

validity rather than the execution of the sentence. See Davis v. Roberts, 425 F.3d

830, 834 (10th Cir. 2005). As this court turned away his earlier § 2254

application, see Firth v. Smelser, 403 F. App’x 321, 322 (10th Cir. 2010)

(unpublished), Firth must demonstrate entitlement to file a second or successive

application, which we can authorize only if a new rule of constitutional law (made

retroactive by the Supreme Court) or some new factual predicate has emerged. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Because Firth points to neither here, we deny

authorization to file the current application.

- 2 -

Appellate Case: 16-1380 Document: 01019764241 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 2 
We also conclude that reasonable jurists would not disagree with the

district court’s dismissal of the earned-time credits claim. As this court noted in

Fogle v. Pierson, 435 F.3d 1252 (10th Cir. 2006), Colorado law makes earnedtime credits discretionary, not mandatory, so prisoners have no entitlement to

them. Id. at 1262. Nothing in Firth’s brief persuades us that Fogle spoke

incorrectly. The lack of a constitutionally protected liberty interest in earnedtime credits under Colorado law thus precludes federal habeas relief. 

We DENY the request for a COA and dismiss this appeal. Further, we

DENY Mr. Firth’s motions to certify a question of state law, to interpret questions

of law, and for authorization to file a second or successive habeas application. 

Finally, we DENY the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and remind Firth of

his obligation to pay the filing fee in full. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

Timothy M. Tymkovich

Chief Judge

- 3 -

Appellate Case: 16-1380 Document: 01019764241 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 3