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

### A p ril12,2007 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 J OHN CHARLE S GAU THI ER, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. H A SK E L L H I G G I N S, W ar den, R es pondent- A ppel l ee. N o. 06- 7102 ( D . C. N o. CI V - 05 - 20 3- FH S) (E .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 e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t Jo h n C h a rle s G a u th ier , a p a ro led sta te in m a te appea r i ng pr o s e, appea l s fr om t he deni al of hi s pet i t i on forhabea s corpus p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § 2 2 4 1 . M r . Ga u th i e r ’ s p e t i t i o n a l l e g e d t h a tt h e Ok l a h o ma D epart m entof C or r ect i ons ( O D O C ) vi ol at ed hi s due pr oces s r i ght s byt r ans ferr i ng h im to a d iffe re n t fa c ili tya t a lo w e r c las sifica tio n lev e l, w ith o u t a h e a rin g , in r et al i at i on fora ci vi l r i ght s l aw s ui the has fi l ed aga i ns tO D O C offi ci al s . T he di s t r i ctcourtdeni ed the pet i t i on, hol di ng thatM r . G authi erw as notent i t l ed t o a hear i ng befor e hi s t r ans ferorchange i n cl as s i fi cat i on l evel . I tfur therhel d that M r. G a u th ier c o u ld n o t fa c tu a llye sta b lish th a t h is c iv il righ ts la w su it w a s th e b u tfo r ca u se o f h is tran sfe r an d classifica ti o n red u cti o n . W e c o n stru e M r. G au thier’s- 2 -

a pp e a l a s a r e qu e s tfo ra Cer t i fi c a t e of A pp e a l a bi l i ty( CO A ) , s e e Fe d. R. A pp . P. 22( b) , w hi ch i s a pr er equi s i t e forr evi ew i ng the deni al of a s t at e pr i s oner ’ s habea s c o rp u s p e titio n , s e e M o n te z v . M c K in n a , 2 0 8 F .3 d 8 6 2 , 8 6 7 -6 8 (1 0 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). H avi ng concl uded thatM r . G authi ercannotm ake “ 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 . § 2253( c) ( 2) , w e denya C O A and d ism iss h is a p p e a l.

B ackgr ound A tt he t i m e hi s habea s pet i t i on w as fi l ed, M r . G authi erw as i ncar cer at ed at t he H ow ar d M cLeod C or r ect i onal C ent eri n A t oka, O kl ahoma. M r . G authi er began s ervi ng hi s s ent ence i n A ugus tof 2003, and he i m m edi at el ybegan e arni ng “good t i m e” c r edi t s forhi s good behavi orw hi l e i n cus t ody . H e s oon qual i fi ed hi m s el f fora Level I V cl as s i fi cat i on, w hi ch ent i t l ed hi m t o–among ot her t hi ngs –t he hi ghes ti nm at e paygr ade, enhanc ed t el ephone pr i vi l eges , and the o p p o r tu n i t yt o e a r n u p t o 6 0 g o o d t i me c r e d i t s p e rmo n th o f i n c a r c e r a t i o n . S e e R. D oc. 8 E x. 8, at11. O n Jan u ary2 1 , 2 0 0 5 , co rrecti o n al office rs co n d u cted a se arc h o f M r. G authi er ’ s cel l . T heydi s cover ed l egal m at er i al s bel ongi ng t o M r . G authi erand s ever al ot heri nm at es as w el l as l egal document s bear i ng the name of C or r ect i onal O ffice r D o n W ill iam s. S e e R . D o c . 8 E x . 5 . O D O C o fficia ls c o n sid e re d it in a p p ro p ria te fo r a n in m a te to a ss ist a n o ffice r w ith leg a l w o rk b e c a u se it co u ld- 3 -

affectt he off

i cer ’ s i m par t i al i t yorgi ve the i nm at e undue i nfl uence overthe offi cer . T her efor e, O ffi cerW i l l i ams w as r epr i m anded, and M r . G authi erw as o rde red tr an sfe rred to an o ther fac il ity . In a cc o rda n ce w ith O D O C p o li cy , M r. G authi erw as cl as s i fi ed atL evel I fol l ow i ng hi s tr ans fer . See R . D oc. 8 E x. 8, at 2 ( “A nyt i m e i nm at es t r ans ferl at er al l yort o hi ghers ecur i tydue t o . . . r eas ons of s e c u ri ty, th e tr a n s fe rr in g fa c ility w ill r e d u c e th e in m a te to L e v e l I e ffe c tiv e . . . the d ate o f th e tran sfe r . . . . ”). A ft ert he s ear ch butbefor e the tr ans ferw as fi nal i zed, M r . G authi erfi l ed a ci vi l r i ght s l aw s ui ts eeki ng t he r etur n of the l egal m at er i al s thathad bee n co n fisca ted f

rom h is cell . M r. G au thier co n tend s tha t, sh o rt lyb efo re the tr an sfe r, he i nform ed R es pondent - A ppel l ee W ar den H as kel l H i ggi ns thathe and A s s i s t ant W a rd e n B ill R e yn o ld s w e re n a m e d a s d e fe n d a n ts in th is la w su it. O n M ay5, 2005, M r . G authi erbr oughthi s habea s pet i t i on i n the di s tr i ct cour t , al l egi ng t hathi s t r ans ferand cl as s i fi cat i on r educt i on vi ol at ed the due p ro c e ss c lau se o f

th e F o u rte e n th A m e n d m e n t, co n stitu ted re talia tio n fo r h is c iv il rig h ts la w su it, a n d d e p riv e d h im o f 2 0 0 c re d its h e w o u ld h a v e e a rn e d b u t fo r h is cl as s i fi cat i on r educt i on. T he di s tr i ctcour tdeni ed hi s pet i t i on, rul i ng both that M r . G authi erw as notent i t l ed t o a hea r i ng forthe R es pondent ’ s admi ni s tr at i ve deci s i ons and thathe coul d notes t abl i s h thatr et al i at i on m ot i vat ed hi s tr ans ferand c las sifica tio n re d u c tio n . T h e c o u rt a lso n o ted th a t an in m a te h a s n o lib e rty i nt er es ti n cr edi t s unt i l t heyar e ea rned.- 4 - D i s cus s i on B efor e cons i der i ng t he mer i t s of M r . G authi er ’ 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 . W e w i l l gr anta C O A “onl yi f the appl i canthas m a d e a s u b s ta n tia l s h o w in g o f th e d e n ia l o f

a c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t.” 2 8 U .S .C . § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). In o th e r w o rd s, M r. G a u th ier “ m u st d e m o n stra te th a t re a so n a b le j u r i s t s wo u l d fi n d t h e d i s t r i c tc o u r t ’ s a s s e s s me n to f th e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms d eb atab le or w ron g . ” S lack v . M cD an iel , 5 2 9 U . S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 (20 0 0 ). M r . G authi er ’ s pet i t i on r ai s ed fouri s s ues : ( 1) the tr ans fer ; ( 2) the r educt i on t o L evel I cl as s i fi cat i on; ( 3) t he depr i vat i on of cr edi t s thatw oul d have be en earned; and ( 4) t he al l eged r et al i at i on. W i th r es pectt o the tr ans fer , the di s tr i ct cour thel d t hat“[t ] he l aw i s cl earpet i t i onerhas no cons t i tut i onal r i ghtt o be h o u s e d in a c e rt a in fa c ility o r i n a c e rt a in u n it w ith in a fa c ility.” R . D o c . 2 3 , a t 2 . G iv e n th a t O k lah o m a law c re a tes n o e x p e c tatio n th a t a p riso n e r w ill b e h e ld in anypar t i cul arfac i l i t y , t hi s hol di ng w as undoubt edl ycorr ect . See M ont any e v. H aym es , 427 U . S. 236, 242- 43 ( 1976) ( “The [D ue Pr oces s ] C l aus e does not r equi r e hea r i ngs i n connec t i on w i th tr ans fer s w hetherornottheyar e the r es ul tof the in m ate’s m isbe h av ior o r m ayb e lab eled as d isci p li n aryo r pu n it ive.”). W i t h r es pectt o t he r educt i on i n cl as s i fi cat i on, the di s tr i ctcourthel d that “[p] r i s on offi ci al s m us tbe abl e t o cl as s i fyand hous e pr i s oner [s ] as theys ee f i tfor in stitu tio n a l se c u rityp u rp o se s.” R . D o c . 2 3 , at 2 . It also c ited M o n tayne , in w hi ch the Supr eme C our thel d t hat“[a ] s l ong as the condi t i ons ordegr ee of- 5 -

confi nementt o w hi ch the pr i s oneri s s ubj ect ed i s w i thi n the s ent ence i m pos ed up on him and i s not otherw i se vi olat i ve o f t he C on st i tuti on , the D ue P rocess C lau se d o e s n o t in itse lf su bjec t an in m a te’ s tre a tm e n t b yp riso n a u th o rities to j udi ci al over s i ght . ” 427 U . S. at242. I n otherw or ds , M r . G authi erw as not enti t l ed to a heari ng befo re hi s cl assi fi cat i on cou l d b e autom at i cal l yreduced as a r es ul tof hi s t r ans fer . N o r eas onabl e j ur i s tcoul d concl ude otherw i s e. T he di s t r i ctcour tl i kew i s e hel d thatM r . G authi erw as notdeni ed due pr oces s s i m pl ybeca us e hi s r educe d cl as s i fi cat i on l evel depr i ved hi m of the chanc e t o earn addi t i onal cr edi t s . I tr eas oned thathe “ha s no pr ot ect ed c o n s titu tio n a l r ig h t in a n e a rn e d c re d it u n til it h a s b e e n e a rn e d .” R . D o c . 2 3 , a t 4 . In li g h t of

o u r rece n t ho lding in F o g le v. P ierson , 4 3 5 F . 3 d 1 2 5 2 , 1 2 6 2 (10 th C ir . 2006) , t hatan i nm at e “ha s no cons t i tut i onal l y - pr ot ect ed l i bertyi nt er es ti n earni ng

. . . credi t s, ” no reas on able j uri stw ou l d d i sagree w i th the di stri ctcou rt ’s analy si s. Fi nal l y , t he di s t r i ctcourtr ej ect ed M r . G authi er ’ s ar gum entthathi s tr ans fer a n d re d u c tio n in c las sifica tio n w e re o rd e re d in re talia tio n fo r h is c iv il righ ts l aw s ui t . A s t he di s t r i ctcour tnot ed, a pr i s onercl ai m i ng r et al i at i on m us t“al l ege sp ec ifi c fac ts sho w ing retali ati o n [o n ac co u n t] o f th e e x erc ise o f th e p ri so n er’s co n sti tuti o n al ri g h ts, ” F raz ier v. D u b o is, 9 2 2 F . 2 d 5 6 0 , 5 6 2 n . 1 (10 th C ir . 1 9 9 0 ), and he “ m us tpr ove that‘ butfor ’ the r et al i at orym ot i ve, the i nci dent s t o w hi ch he r efe r s , i ncl udi ng t he di s ci pl i naryact i on, w oul d nothave t aken pl ace , ” Sm i th v. M as chner , 899 F. 2d 940, 949- 50 ( 10th C i r . 1990) . M r . G authi eradmi t s thathe- 6 -

w a s fo u n d to b e a s s is tin g a c o rr e c tio n a l o ffic e r w ith le g a l w o rk . S e e R . D o c . 1 A tt. 1 , at 6 (“ I h e lp e d so m e c o rre c tio n a l o ffice r a t M c L e o d w ith leg a l w o rk (a t h is r eques t ) . . . . ”) . H e offer s no evi dence r ebutt i ng the cont ent i on thathe w as m o v e d a n d re -c las sified b e c a u se o f th e se c u rityrisk s c re a ted b yh is re latio n sh ip w ith th e o ffice r. T h u s, M r. G a u th ier d id n o t es tab lish th a t re talia tio n w a s th e b u tfor cause of

his t ransferand cl assi fi cat i on reduct i on , and no reas on able j uri st w oul d debat e thatt he di s t r i ctcourtpr oper l ydeni ed hi s habea s pet i t i on. A c c or di ng l y , w e D EN Y M r . G a uthi e r ’ s r e qu e s tfo ra CO A a nd D I SM I SS h is 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