Pet i t i oner ’ s capt i on onl yi dent i fi es W ar den Fr ankl i n. Pet i t i oner ’ s br i ef * offers no further i den t i fi cat i on of u nn am ed p art i es. T hi s or deri s notbi ndi ng pr ece dent , exce ptundert he doctr i nes of l aw of ** the ca s e, r es j udi cat a, and col l at er al es t oppel . T he courtgener al l ydi s favor s t he ci t at i on of or der s ; neverthel es s , an or derm aybe ci t ed undert he t erm s and condi t i ons of 10th C i r . R . 36. 3. A ft erexami ni ng the br i efs and the appe l l at e r ecor d, t hi s t hr ee-j udge *** panel has det erm i ned unani m ous l yt hator al ar gum entw oul d notbe of mat er i al a s s is ta n c e in th e d e te rm in a tio n o f th is a p p e a l. See F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 4 (a ); 1 0 th C ir. R . 3 4 .1 (G ). T h e c a u se is th e re fo re o rd e re d su b m itt e d w ith o u t o ra l ar g u m e n t. 

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

### Ju n e30,2006 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 S I DNE Y A. WORT HE N,

P e tit io n e r-A p p e llan t, N o. 06- 6058 v . (W .D . o f O k la .) E R I C FR A N K L I N , W ar den, and OKL AHOMA DE P AR T M E NT OF CO RRECTI ON S, I TS EM PLOY EES AN D STA FF , ET AL. *

R es pondent - A ppel l ee. ( D. C. No . CV- 0 5 - 1 0 9 0 - C)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE O F AP PEALABI LI TY ** B efo re HA RTZ , EBEL, and TY M KOVI CH , C i rcui tJudg es. *** S id n e yA llen W o rth e n , an O k lah o m a sta te p riso n e r, re q u e sts a C e rtific a te of A ppeal abi l i ty( C O A ) t o appea l t he di s tr i ctcourt ’ s di s m i s s al of hi s habea s peti t i on un der 28 U . S . C . § 2 24 1. S i nce W orthen app ears pro se , w e c o n stru e h is-2-

p le a d in g s lib e ra lly. C um m i ngs v. E vans , 161 F. 3d 610, 613 ( 10th C i r . 1998) . T he di s tr i ctcourthel d thata C O A s houl d noti s s ue bec aus e W or then fa i l ed t o m 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 . W e agr ee, and a c c o rd in g ly , D E N Y th e re q u e st fo r a C O A a n d D IS M IS S th e a p p e a l. I . Backg r ound I n 1982, W or then w as convi ct ed of murde rand s ent ence d t o l i fe i m pr i s onm ent . T w o y ear s l at erhe pl eade d gui l tyt o ai di ng and abe t t i ng a pr i s on e s c a p e . F o rr e a s o n s u n c l e a ri n th e r e c o r d , W o r th e n wa s a tt h e s a me t i me c las sified a s e ith e r a lev e l 3 o r le v e l 4 in m a te, m a k in g h im e lig ib le to e a rn c re d its w hich w ou l d all ow him t o o btai n cert ai n p ri son b enefi t s. I n A pr i l 2005, agai n forr eas ons notent i r el yexpl ai ned byt he r ecor d, O k laho m a p ri so n o ffici als classified W o rth en at l ev el 4. L ev el 4 in m ates a re el i gibl e for earned credi t s that can w ork t o sho rt en the l eng th o f t heirsent ences, as w el l as ot herpr i s on benef i t s , s uch as a hi gherpaygr ade a nd s pendi ng pr i vi l eges atthe pr i s on cant een. T w o m onths l at er , how ever , pr i s on author i t i es re e x a m in e d W o rth e n ’s c las sifica tio n lev e l. B e c a u se th e 1 9 8 4 e sc a p e c o n v ictio n is m i s conductunderD epart m entof C or r ect i ons ( D O C ) pol i cyO P- 060107, t hey c o n c l u d e d h e w a s i n e l i g i b l e fo rl e v e l 4 a n d h a d b e e n m i s c l a s s i fi e d . A c c o r d i n g l y, W o rth e n w a s d e m o ted to lev e l 2 , w h e re , u n d e r D O C ’s c u rre n t p o licy , h e w ill r emai n forthe dur at i on of hi s s ent ence . A tl evel 2, W or then ca nnotearn as m any g o o d tim e c re d its , n o r i s h e e lig ib le fo r a n u m b e r o f p ri s o n b e n e fits .-3-

W or then fi l ed a ha beas pet i t i on i n di s tr i ctcourtcl ai m i ng the D O C pol i cyas appl i ed t o hi s 1984 convi ct i on w as unl aw ful as ( 1) an ex pos tf acto v io la tio n , (2) a dep ri vati on of d ue p rocess , and (3) a den i al of eq ual pr otect i on . H e al so s ou gh ta de c l a r a t oryj ud gmen t , a r gu i ng tha ta pp l i c a t i on of the D O C pol i c yO P060107 vi ol at ed the ex pos tf acto clau se. U p o n the m ag istrate jud g e’s r e c o mm e n d a t i o n , t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r tc o n c l u d e d th a tth e a p p l i c a t i o n o f th e DOC p o li cyd id n o t violate W o rth en ’s ri g h ts an d d en ied h is r eq u est fo r a d ec laratory ju d g m e n t. II . A n a ly sis A ci r cui tcourtm ayi s s ue a CO A “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade 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 . § 2253( c) ( 2) . W her e a di s tr i ctcourt“has r ej ect ed the cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s on t he m e rits,” a n a p p lica n t m e e ts th is s tan d a rd b y“ d e m o n stra t[ in g ] th a t re a so n a b le j u r i s t s wo u l d fi n d th e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ' s a s s e s s me n to f t h e c o n s t i tu t i o n a l c l a i ms debat abl e orw r ong. ” Mill e r-E l v. C o c kre ll , 537 U . S. 322, 338 ( 2003) ( quot i ng Slack v . McD ani el , 5 2 9 U. S . 4 7 3 , 4 8 4 ( 2 0 0 0 ) ) . I n c o n d u c t i n g o u ra n a l y s i s , we need onl yengage i n “an ove r vi ew of the cl ai m s i n the . . . pet i t i on and a ge ner al as s es s m entof thei rm er i t s ” r athert han “f ul l cons i der at i on of the fa ctual orl egal bas es adduce d i n s uppor tof the cl ai m s . ” Id. a t 3 3 6 .-4-

A . E x P o st F a c to C la im W or then’ s fi r s tar gum enti s t hatt he l evel 2 cl as s i fi cat i on bas ed on the 1984 e s c a p e c o n v i c t i o n v i o l a t e s th e Ex Po s tFa c t o Cl a u s e o f t h e Con s t i tu t i o n . To v iolate th e E x P o st Fa cto C laus e, a law m u st be retrosp ec ti v e, an d m u st “alt e[ r] the def i ni t i on of cr i m i nal conductori ncr eas [e] t he puni s hm entfor[a] cr i m e” a f te r i t h a s b e e n c o m m itte d . Ly n c e v . Ma th is , 519 U . S. 433, 441 ( 1997) . T he appl i cat i on of D O C pol i cydi d noti ncr eas e W or then’ s puni s hm entforas s i s t i ng th e e sc a p e b e y o n d th a t im p o se d in 1 9 8 4 . In 1 9 8 4 , O k lah o m a law p ro v id e d c re d its onl yfors chool orw or k, and W or then does notcl ai m t hatD O C fai l ed t o pr ovi de cr edi t s underthe ea r l i ers y s t em. I n fac t , W or then di d notl os e anycr edi t s t hathe had underthe 1984 s y s t em si nce hi s m i s conductoccurr ed befor e the four - l evel cr edi ts y s t em w as adopt ed i n 1988. S e e Sm ith v . Sc o tt , 2 2 3 F .3 d 1 1 9 1 , 1 1 9 3 (1 0 th C i r . 2000) . A s t o t he i m pos i t i on of a ne w cl as s i fi cat i on s y s t em i n 1988, W or t hen cannots how thati ti ncr eas ed hi s puni s hm entbey ond thati n pl ace att he t i m e of hi s convi ct i on . M or eover , even i f the new cl as s i fi cat i on s y s t em som ehow i m pos ed r etr os pect i ve puni s hm ent , habea s r el i ef i s s t i l l unavai l abl e t o W or then. Pur s uant to O k lah o m a law , W o rth e n is n o t elig ib le to h a v e a n ytim e d e d u c ted f ro m h is s e n te n c e o n th e b a s is o f h is c re d it le v e l b e c a u s e h e is s e rv in g a life s e n te n c e . O kl a. St at . A nn t i t . 57 § 138( a) ( 1915) . A w r i tof habe as corpus can onl ybe gr ant ed i f W or then has the pos s i bi l i tyof expe di t ed r el eas e. See McInt os h v. U. S.W or then al s o as ks thatw e r el yon Wi lki ns on v. D ots on , 544 U . S. 74 1 ( 2005) , i n w hi ch the Supr eme C our thel d thatpr i s oner s m aychal l enge the cons t i tut i onal i tyof s t at e par ol e pr ocedur es under42 U . S. C . § 1983. 544 U . S. at 76. T hi s cas e does notaffectouranal y s i s of W or then’ s cl ai m s beca us e he ha s not file d a § 1 9 8 3 c la im . -5- P a ro le C o m m ’n , 115 F. 3d 809, 812 ( 10th C i r . 1997) . T he Supr eme C our thas hel d that“cons t i tut i onal cl ai m s t hatm er el ychal l enge the condi t i ons of a pr i s oner ’ s confi nement. . . fal l out s i de [the] cor e [of fede r al habea s corpus ] and m a yb e b ro u g h t p u rs u a n t to § 1 9 8 3 ” in s te a d . Ne lso n v . C a mp b e ll , 541 U . S. 637, 6 4 3 (2 0 0 4 ). T h e re fo re , h a b e a s re lief is u n a v a ilab le to W o rth e n so lelyo n th e b a sis of hi s pr i s on cl as s i fi cat i on. 1 B . D u e P r o c e ss C la im W or then’ s due pr oces s ar gum enti s s i m i l ar l yfl aw ed. W or then has no c o g n iz a b le lib e rt yin te re s t in a v o id in g a p p lic a tio n o f D O C ’s c la s s ific a tio n p o lic y . H e has no hope of be i ng r el eas ed fr om pr i s on anyear l i eron the bas i s of cr edi t s he earns ori s el i gi bl e t o earn undert he pol i cy . O kl a. St at . A nn. t i t . 57 § 138( a) (1 9 1 5 ); s ee Stephens v. Thom as , 19 F. 3d 498 ( 10th C i r . 1994) ( hol di ng thatN ew M e x ico in m a te s e rv in g life se n ten c e h a s n o lib e rtyin ter e st in g o o d tim e c re d its earned dur i ng fi r s tt en y ear s of i m pr i s onm entw her e s t at e l aw forbi ds t he appl i cat i on of s uch cr edi t s t o r educe t he s ent ence of a pr i s oners ervi ng a l i fe s ent ence ) . W hi l e he mayhave a l i bertyi nt er es ti n the r i ghtt o earn addi t i onalW o rt h e n h a d a lib e rt yin te re s t in c re d its a lr e a d ye a rn e d . See Waldon v. 2 E vans , 861 P. 2d 311, 313 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1993) . T he D O C di d nott ake a w ay c r e d i t s Wo r th e n wa s e r r o n e o u s l ya l l o we d t o e a rn p r i o rt o t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f DOC p o lic y . W o rth e n su g g e sts th a t Wi ls on v. Jones , 430 F. 3d 1113 ( 10th C i r . 2005) 3 and B r anham v. Workm an , 2006 W L 950656 ( 10th C i r . A pr . 13, 2006) ( unpubl i s hed) , poi ntt o a di ffe r entout come. W e di s agr ee. I n Wi ls on , w e hel d a m i s conductvi ol at i on thatr educe d a pr i s oner ’ s cr edi tl evel i n a w ayw hi ch in e v itab lya ffe c ted th e d u ra tio n o f h is s e n ten c e d e p riv e d th e in m a te o f a lib e rty in te re s t a n d th e re fo re v io la te d th e d u e p ro c e s s c la u s e . Wi ls on pr ovi des W or then no s uccorbeca us e, as not ed above , W or then’ s m i s conductvi ol at i on cannotaffect th e d u ra tio n o f

h is life s e n te n c e . B r anham i s al s o unhel pful t o W or then. I n that u n p u b lish e d c a se , w e h e ld th a t an in m a te c o u ld n o t p re v a il o n a d u e p ro c e ss c laim fo r g o o d tim e c re d its w h e n th e in m a te w a s n e v e r e n tit led to re c e iv e th e c re d its in the fir st place . T h e sa m e c o u ld b e sa id o f W o rth en ’s ri g h t t o ea rn f u ture cr edi t s — he w as notent i t l ed t o earn the cr edi t s he has and ce r t ai nl yi s notent i t l ed to e a rn a n ym o re u n d e r D O C p o lic y . -6- cr edi t s for pr i vi l eges w hi l e i ncar cer at ed, he mustvi ndi cat e thi s i nt er es tt hough a 2 § 1 9 8 3 c la im . Nels on , 541 U . S. at643. 3 C . E qual P rot ect i on C la im It is n o t d is p u ta b le th a t W o rt h e n ’s e q u a l p ro te c tio n c la im a ls o la c k s m e ri t. T he Equal Pr ot ect i on C l aus e “r equi r es t he governm entt o tr eats i m i l ar l ys i tuat ed peopl e al i ke. ” B ar ney v . P uls i pher , 143 F. 3d 1299, 1312 ( 10th C i r . 1998) ( ci t i ng C i t y of C l ebur ne v. C l ebur ne Li vi ng C ent er , 473 U . S. 432, 439 ( 1985) ) . W or t hen al l eges thattw o otheri nm at es w er e i nvol ved i n the 1984 mi s conduct , and that th e yh a v e n o t b e e n p e n a liz e d w ith th e s a m e d e m o tio n in c re d it le v e l a s W o rt h e n . W e have addr es s ed s i m i l arar gum ent s i n the pas t , and conc l uded thatt he D O C has d isc re tio n to c las sif

yin m a tes d iffe re n tlye v e n b e c a u se o f m in o r d iffe re n c e s in-7-

thei rhi s t or i es orbeca us e s om e i nm at es pr es enta hi gherr i s k of futur e mi s conduct th a n o th e rs . Templ em an v. G unt er , 1 6 F .3 d 3 6 7 , 3 6 8

– 7 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). W or then has poi nt ed t o not hi ng thats how s the di s par at e tr eatm entl acks a r at i onal bas i s ori s otherw i s e bas ed on s us pectchar act er i s t i cs . I n s um , w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtt hatt he al l eged s i m i l ar i t i es betw een W or then’ s m i s conductand that o f o th e r i n m a te s is n o t s u ffic ie n t to a lle g e a n e q u a l p ro te c tio n v io la tio n . S e e id . I I I . C oncl usi on Forthes e r eas ons , w e D E N Y W or then’ s appl i cat i on fora C O A and D IS M IS S th is a p p e a l. E n tered fo r th e C o u rt

T i m othyM . T ym kovi ch C i r cui tJ udge