Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06057/USCOURTS-ca10-91-06057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General
Appellee
R. Michael Cody
Appellee
Claudie Wallace
Appellant

Document Text:

PUBLISH ~ 1 L ... 1i D 

• ~ ·• · Qi~ofAp~b UmtDd ~ Cireui~ 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 0 9 1991 

ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

TENTH CIRCUIT 

CLAUDIE WALLACE, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) No. 91-6057 

) 

R. MICHAEL CODY; ATTORNEY GENERAL 1 ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA 

(D.C. No. CIV-90-1631-T) 

Submitted on the briefs: 

Claudie Wallace, Pro Se. 

Susan Brimer Loving, Attorney General of Oklahoma, Wellon B. Poe, 

Assistant Attorney General, and Alecia A. George, Assistant 

Attorney General, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Respondents- Appellees. 

Before ANDERSON, BARRETT, and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

· ANDERSON, Circuit Judge. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

Appellate Case: 91-6057 Document: 01019323548 Date Filed: 12/09/1991 Page: 1 
34(a); lOth Cir. R. 34.1.9. The case is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

Petitioner appeals from an Order of the district court 

dismissing his Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 

28 u.s.c. § 2254. The district court's dismissal of the habeas 

petition, alleging that Petitioner was entitled to a "speedier 

release" due to improper state calculation of earned credits, was 

based on the ground that Petitioner had failed to exhaust state 

court remedies or prove that state remedies are futile. Because 

we conclude exhaustion would be futile, we remand to the district 

court for further proceedings. 

11 [W]hen a state prisoner is challenging the ••• duration of 

his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a 

determination that he is entitled to • a speedier release from 

that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas 

corpus." Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 u.s. 475, 500 (1973). Habeas 

corpus is the proper remedy for the withholding of good time 

credits if the withholding affects the length of confinement. 

Gregory v. Wyse, 512 F.2d 378, 381 (lOth Cir. 1975). 

A federal court, however, cannot consider a habeas petition 

unless the petitioner has exhausted state remedies or there are no 

available state remedies. 28 u.s.c. § 2254(b); see Taylor v. 

Wallace, 931 F.2d 698, 699 n.l (lOth Cir. 199l)(action for 

restoration of good time credits properly brought under § 2254 

with exhaustion of state remedies required). "[E]xhaustion of 

state remedies is not required where the state's highest court has 

~ recently decided the precise legal issue that petitioner seeks to 

2 

Appellate Case: 91-6057 Document: 01019323548 Date Filed: 12/09/1991 Page: 2 
raise on his federal habeas petition. In such a case, resort to 

state judicial remedies would be futile." Goodwin v. Oklahoma, 

923 F.2d 156, 157 (lOth Cir. 1991). 

Effective November 1, 1988, Oklahoma enacted a new earned 

credits scheme, which was to be applied prospectively. Okla. 

Stat. tit. 57, §§ 138, 224. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal 

Appeals held in Ekstrand v. Oklahoma, 791 P.2d 92, 95 (Okla. Crim. 

App. 1990), that prisoners who are disadvantaged by the amended 

earned credits statutes are entitled to have their credits 

computed under the statute in effect on the date their crime was 

conunitted. Thus, a prisoner may earn credit based on the new 

scheme or the scheme in effect on the date of the offense, 

whichever is more favorable. The court explained that proper 

procedure for such disadvantaged prisoners is to file an 

application for habeas corpus relief in state district court. 

"[B]efore any such writ can be granted, a petitioner must 

demonstrate that under the statute in effect on the date his • 

crime was committed, he • • • would have earned enough credits to 

be entitled to IMMEDIATE release." Id. 1 

Because Petitioner seeks speedier and not immediate release, 

he has no adequate or available state remedy under recent Oklahoma 

law. Any filing for state post-conviction relief would be futile 

as to Petitioner's "speedier release" claim. In their brief, 

Respondents concede that exhaustion would be futile. 

1 Oklahoma prisoners have a liberty interest in earned credits. 

Okla. Stat. tit. 57, § 138A; Burch v. Kaiser, 801 P.2d 130, 132 

(Okla. Crim. App. 1990); State ex rel. Maynard v. Page, 798 P.2d 

628, 629 (Okla. Crim. App. 1990). 

3 

Appellate Case: 91-6057 Document: 01019323548 Date Filed: 12/09/1991 Page: 3 
0 

Because exhaustion would be futile for a claim for proper 

calculation of good time credits that would not result in an 

immediate release, the district court improperly dismissed the 

habeas petition. Accordingly, we remand to the district court for 

further proceedings to determine whether Petitioner is 

disadvantaged by the amended statute and, if so, whether his 

earned credits are being calculated in accordance with the 

standards set forth in Ekstrand and Page. If the prison 

authorities are incorrectly calculating earned credits, the 

district court is directed to fashion a remedy to ensure 

restoration and proper calculation of credits. 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the 

Western District of Oklahoma is REVERSED. The action is REMANDED 

~ for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

Petitioner's Application for a Certificate of Probable Cause is 

GRANTED. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

4 

Appellate Case: 91-6057 Document: 01019323548 Date Filed: 12/09/1991 Page: 4