## F I LED United States C ourt of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### F e b r u ary28,2007 Elisab eth A. Shumaker C l erk of C ourt UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS

T E N T H C IR C U IT CH AD B RO WN, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. JU S T IN JO N E S , D ir ec tor, R es pondent- A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 6299 ( D. C. No . 0 5 - CV- 9 1 8 - R) (W .D . O k la .)

ORDE R DENYI NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M UR P HY , and O’ BRI EN , C i rcui tJudg es. P eti ti o n er-A p p ell an t C h ad B row n , an O k laho m a state inm ate a p p ea ri n g p ro s e, s eeks a C ert i fi cat e of A ppeal abi l i ty( C O A ) s o thathe maychal l enge the di s t r i ctcourt ’ s deni al of hi s pet i t i on fora w r i tof habe as corpus pur s uantt o 28 U . S. C . § 2241. M r . B r ow n cl ai m s t hathe w as deni ed due pr oces s dur i ng a pr i s on di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ng beca us e the evi dence agai ns thi m w as i ns uffi ci ent . T he m at t erw as as s i gned t o a magi s t r at e j udge, w ho r ecomm ended thatt he pet i t i on be deni ed bec aus e the r ecor d cont ai ned s uffi ci entevi dence t o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of m i s conduct . T he di s t r i ctcour tadopt ed the magi s tr at e j udge’ s r ecomm endat i ons a n d d e n ied M r. B ro w n ’s p e tit io n . B e c a u se M r. B ro w n ’s c laim is n o t re a so n a b ly debat abl e among j ur i s t s , w e denya C O A and di s m i s s t he appe al . See Sl ack v.- 2 -

M c D a n ie l, 5 2 9 U .S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (2 0 0 0 ).

B ackgr ound I n J anuary2005, w hi l e M r . B r ow n w as s ervi ng a s t at e s ent ence atthe H o w a rd M c L e o d C o rre c tio n a l F a c ili tyin A to k a , O k lah o m a , co rre c tio n a l o fficia ls char ged hi m w i t h m enac i ng. A l l egedl y , an i nm at e made a s exual thr eatt o a fe m a le s e rg e a n t th ro u g h th e lad ies ’ re stro o m d o o r, an d M r. B ro w n w a s th e o n ly inm ate in the v ici n ityo f th e re str o o m at th at t im e. S ee A p lt . B r. E x . 1 , 2 , 7 . M r. B r ow n r ece i ved not i ce of t he cha r ge aga i ns thi m on J anuary16, w hen corr ect i onal o fficia ls g a v e h im a c o p yo f th e o ffe n se re p o rt. M ai nt ai ni ng hi s i nnocenc e, M r . B r ow n r eques t ed a he ar i ng. H e as ked that t w o corr ect i onal offi cer s be ca l l ed t o t es t i fythathe w as notthe onl yone i n the hal l w ay , and he a l s o cl ai m ed thatvi deo s ur vei l l ance t apes w oul d s how thathe w as nott he i nm at e w ho m ade the thr eat . A l though the off i cer s w er e notpr es ent atM r . B r ow n’ s hear i ng, t hei rs t at ement s w er e made avai l abl e t o hi m . H e w as ap p are n tl yn o t give n ac ce ss to the v ideo su rve il lanc e tap es h e re q u ested , h o w ev er. Fol l ow i ng t he hea r i ng, M r . B r ow n w as found gui l tyof m enac i ng and corr ect i onal author i t i es r emoved 365 day s of cr edi t s thathe had e arned and r educe d hi s cl as s i fi cat i on l evel for90 day s . M r . B r ow n w as gi ven a c opyof the D isc ip lin a ryH e a rin g R e p o rt, i n w h ich th e h e a rin g o ffice r e x p lain e d th e sp e c ific r eas ons w hyhe had de t erm i ned thatM r . B r ow n w as gui l ty . T he hea r i ng offi cer- 3 -

not ed thathe had r el i ed on the r eport i ng offi cer ’ s s t at ementthatM r . B r ow n w as t he onl yi nm at e i n t he hal l w ayatthe t i m e of the i nci dentand the cons i s t ent s t at ementof anotheroffi cert hathe had notobs erved anyotheri nm at e l eave the uni taft ert he thr eatw as m ade. M r . Br o wn p u r s u e d a d mi n i s tr a t i v e r e me d i e s wi th i n th e Ok l a h o ma D e p a rtm e n t o f

C o rre c tio n s (“ O D O C ” ), ap p e a lin g th e h e a rin g o ffice r’s d e c isio n to the w ard en an d then the d ir ec tor o f th e O D O C . O n M ay9 , 2 0 0 5 , the d ir ec tor’s des i gnee i s s ued a de ci s i on aff i r m i ng the fi ndi ng of gui l tand the i m pos i t i on of s anct i ons . T he nextday , O kl ahoma adopt ed a pr ovi s i on al l ow i ng forj udi ci al revi ew , O kla. S t at . t i t . 57 § 5 64 . 1, w hich perm i t s an i nm at e t o ap peal an adv ers e O D O C fi nal deci s i on i n a di s ci pl i naryappea l t o the s t at e di s tr i ctcourtw i thi n 90 day s . M r . B r ow n di d notpur s ue thi s r emedy ; i ns t ead, he fi l ed a feder al habea s pet i t i on on A ugus t11. T he s t at e moved t o di s m i s s the pet i t i on, al l egi ng thatM r . B r ow n had fa i l ed t o exhaus ts t at e r emedi es bynotappea l i ng the O D O C deci s i on t o the s t at e di s tr i ct c o u rt p u rsu a n t to § 5 6 4 .1 . N o tin g c o n flictin g d e c isio n s b yfe d e ra l co u rts in O kl ahoma r egar di ng t he r etr oact i vi tyof the s t atut e and the l ack of an a u th o ritativ e sta te c o u rt d e c isio n o n th e su bjec t, th e m a g istra te ju d g e d e c lin e d to di s m i s s forfai l ur e t o exhaus t . I ns t ead, he r ecomm ended s ua s pont e thatthe d is tr ic t c o u rt d is m is s th e p e titio n fo r l a c k o f m e ri t.- 4 - D i s cus s i on B efor e r eac hi ng t he mer i t s of M r . B r ow n’ s cl ai m , w e mustdet erm i ne w hetherhe i s ent i t l ed t o a C O A . See 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ; M i l l er - E l v. C ockr el l , 537 U . S. 322, 336 ( 2003) . W e w i l l onl ygr anta C O A t o a pet i t i oner w ho m akes “a s ubs t ant i al s how i ng of the deni al of a c ons t i tut i onal r i ght . ” 28 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). M r. B ro w n m a yd o so b ye sta b lish in g th a t “r e a so n a b le j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether. . . the pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r entm annerort hatt he i s s ues pr es ent ed w er e ade quat e t o des erve encour agementt o pr ocee d fur t her . ” Sl ack, 529 U . S. at484 ( i nt ernal quot at i on m ark s o m itted). M r . B r ow n’ s pet i t i on as s ert ed thathe w as deni ed due pr oces s of l aw w hen th e h e a ri n g o ffic e r fo u n d h im g u ilty o f m is c o n d u c t b a s e d o n in s u ffic ie n t e v id e n c e . W e h a v e h e ld th a t “a n in m a te’ s lib e rtyin ter e st in h is e a rn e d g o o d tim e c re d its cann ot be den i ed ‘w i t ho ut the m i nim al safegu ards afforded b ythe D ue P rocess C l aus e of the Four t eenth A m endment . ’ ” Tay l orv. W al l ace , 931 F. 2d 698, 700 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) (qu o ti n g P o n te v. R ea l, 4 7 1 U . S . 4 9 1 , 4 9 5 (19 8 5 )). H o w ev er, beca us e pr i s on di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs ar e notpartof a c r i m i nal pr os ecut i on, “the ful l panopl yof r i ght s due a de fenda nti n s uch pr ocee di ngs does notappl y . ” I d. ( quot i ng W ol ff v. M cD onnel l , 418 U . S. 539, 556 ( 1974) ) . R ather , the i nm at e’ s r i ghtt o due pr oces s i n a di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ng r equi r es onl ythathe r ece i ve: “( 1) advanc e w r i t t en not i ce of the di s ci pl i narychar ges ; ( 2) an- 5 -

o p p o rtu n ity , w h e n c o n sis ten t w ith in stitu tio n a l sa fe tya n d c o rre c tio n a l g o a ls, to cal l w i t nes s es and pr es entdocument aryevi dence i n hi s defe ns e; and ( 3) a w r i t t en s t at ementbyt he fa ct fi nderof the evi dence r el i ed on and the r eas ons forthe di s ci pl i naryact i on. ” Super i nt endent , M as s . C or r . I ns t . v. H i l l , 472 U . S. 445, 454 ( 1 9 8 5 ) . Ad d i t i o n a l l y , t h e fa c t fi n d e r ’ s c o n c l u s i o n s mu s tb e s u p p o r t e d b y“ s o me evi dence i n t he r ecor d. ” I d. T h e d istric t co u rt, rely in g o n th e m a g istra te’ s re p o rt, co n c lu d e d th a t all three d u e p roc ess re q u ir em en ts w ere m et an d that there w as e v iden ti arysu p p o rt fort he fi ndi ng of m i s conduct . W e agr ee, and no r eas onabl e j ur i s tcoul d concl ude ot herw i s e. See Sl ack, 529 U . S. at484. M r . B r ow n w as gi ven adva nce w r i t t en not i ce of

t he cha r ge aga i ns thi m w hen corr ect i onal offi ci al s pr ovi ded hi m w i th a copyof the offens e r epor ton J anuary16, 2005. H e had a hear i ng on J anuary23, i n w hi ch he w as ent i t l ed t o pr es entevi dence , i ncl udi ng s t at ement s bytw o al l eged w i t nes s es . T he hea r i ng offi cercompl et ed a D i s ci pl i naryH ear i ng R eport , w hi ch w a s p ro v id e d to M r. B ro w n . In th e re p o rt, th e h e a rin g o ffice r p o in ted to sta tem e n ts b yc o rre c tio n s o ffice rs th a t M r. B ro w n w a s th e o n lyo n e in th e v icin ity of the l adi es ’ r es t r oom and thatno otheri nm at es w er e s een l eavi ng the ar ea a tt he t i m e of the i nci dent . T hi s evi dence i s s uffi ci entt o s uppor ta fi ndi ng of m i s conduct , not w i t hs t andi ng M r . B r ow n’ s compl ai ntthathe w as notpr ovi ded vari ou s secur i t yt apes. M r . B r ow n’ s appea l al s o ar gues thathe w as deni ed due pr oces s beca us e the- 6 -

hear i ng offi cerw ho found hi m gui l tyof m i s conductw as al l egedl ya w i tnes s t o t he i nci dent . T hi s i s s ue w as notr ai s ed i n hi s § 2241 pet i t i on and notrul ed upon by t he di s t r i ctcour t . I ti s w el l es t abl i s hed thatw e “w i l l notcons i deran i s s ue r ai s ed fort he fi r s tt i m e on appe al . ” Tel e- C om m c’ ns , I nc. v. C om m ’ r , 104 F. 3d 1229, 1 2 3 2 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). A c c o rd in g ly , w e D E N Y th e re q u e st fo r a C O A , D E N Y th e re q u e st to p ro c e e d IF P , an d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l.E n tered fo r th e C o u rt P au l J. K ell y , Jr. C i r cui tJ udge