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

### Ju ly6,2006 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 WES L E Y R HAT I GAN, P e tit io n e r - A p p e llan t, v. RO N WARD, R es pondent- A ppel l ee. N o. 05- 6388 ( D. C. No. 0 5 - CV - 6 5 4 - HE) (W .D . O k la .)

OR DER DENY I NG CERTI FI CATE OF APPE ALABI LI TY B efor e KELLY , M c KAY , and LU CE RO , C i rcui tJudg es. W e sle yR h a tig a n , a s tate p riso n e r p ro c e e d in g p ro se , req u e sts a c e rtific a te o f a p p e a l a b i l i t y( “ COA” ) t o a p p e a l t h e d i s tr i c tc o u r t ’ s d e n i a l o f h i s 2 8 U. S . C. § 2241 habea s pet i t i on. Fors ubs t ant i al l yt he s ame r eas ons s etfor th byt he di s t r i ct cour t , w e DE NY a C O A and D I SM I SS . R hat i gan i s curr ent l ys ervi ng an ei ghty ears ent ence forarm ed r obberyby fo rc e in L a w to n C o rre c tio n a l F a c ili tyin O k lah o m a . A c o rre c tio n a l o ffice r, M a tt Fer r el l , found i n R hat i gan’ s cel l a s oda ca n w i th a s m al l m et al tube s truck thr ough i t , enabl i ng i tt o be us ed t o s m oke mar ij uana. T he ca n s m el l ed hea vi l yof m a ri u a n a a n d F e rr e ll p re p a re d a m is c o n d u c t r e p o rt .R hat i gan’ s pet i t i on w as fi l ed af t erA pr i l 24, 1996, t he effec t i ve dat e of 1 th e A n tit e rro rism a n d E ffe c tiv e D e a th P e n a ltyA c t (“ A E D P A ” ); a s a re su lt, A E D PA ' s pr ovi s i ons appl yt o t hi s cas e. See R oger s v. G i bs on, 173 F. 3d 1278, 1 2 8 2 n .1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ( c itin g L in d h v . M u rp h y , 5 2 1 U .S . 3 2 0 (1 9 9 7 )) . A E D PA condi t i ons a pet i t i oner ' s r i ghtt o appea l a deni al of habe as r el i ef unde r § 2241 upon a gr antof a CO A . 28 U . S. C . § 2253( c) ( 1) ( A ) ; M ont ez v. M cK i nna, 2 0 8 F .3 d 8 6 2 , 8 6 7 (1 0 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (h o ld in g th a t § 2 2 5 3 (c )(1 )(A ) re q u ire s a sta te pr i s onert o obt ai n a C O A r egar dl es s of w hetherhe i s s eeki ng r el i ef unde r§ 2254 orunder§ 2241) . A C O A m aybe i s s ued “onl yi f the appl i canthas m ade a su b sta n tial sh o w in g o f th e d e n ial o f

a c o n stitu tio n a l rig h t.” § 2 2 5 3 (c )(2 ). T h is r equi r es R hat i gan t o s how “thatr eas onabl e j ur i s t s coul d debat e w hether( or , for t hatm at t er , agr ee that ) t he pet i t i on s houl d have be en r es ol ved i n a di ffe r ent m a n n e r o r th a t th e iss u e s p re se n ted w e re a d e q u a te to d e se rv e e n c o u ra g e m e n t to pr ocee d fur t her . ” Sl ack v. M cD ani el , 529 U . S. 473, 484 ( 2000) ( quot at i ons om i t t ed) . B eca us e the di s t r i ctcourtdi d notgr anta C O A , R hat i gan maynot a p p e a l th e d is tr ic t c o u rt ' s d e c is io n a b s e n t a g ra n t o f a C O A b yth is c o u rt . - 2 - Pr i s on offi ci al s hel d a di s ci pl i naryhear i ng, dur i ng w hi ch the doct or ed s oda c a n w a s e n ter e d in to e v id e n c e . T h e yd id n o t co n d u c t a la b o ra to rytes t to det erm i ne thatt he ca n w as us ed fors m oki ng m ar ij uana a nd i ns t ead r el i ed on O ffi cerFer r el l ’ s r eport . R hat i gan w as found gui l tyof Poss es s i on of C ontr aband, a n d , as a re su lt, lo st 3 6 5 d a y s o f e a rn e d g o o d tim e c re d its a n d w a s a ss ig n e d to di s ci pl i narys egr egat i on for30 day s . T he di s ci pl i naryhear i ng’ s r es ul tw as a ffirm e d o n a d m in istra tiv e a p p e a l. R hat i gan then fi l ed thi s habea s pet i t i on, al l egi ng thaterr or s dur i ng the pr i s on di s ci pl i naryhear i ng vi ol at ed hi s r i ght s underthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e. T he di s t r i ctcourtdi s m i s s ed hi s pet i t i on and deni ed hi s s ubs equentappl i cat i on for C O A . H aving fail ed to r ecei ve a C O A from that court , R hati gan no w seeks a C O A f ro m th is c o u rt. 1- 3 -

Pr i s on di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ngs can onl ybe cha l l enged unde rthe D ue Pr oces s C l aus e i f the r es ul t i ng di s ci pl i naryact i on i m pl i cat es a s t at e- cr eat ed lib e rt yin te re s t. S te p h e n s v . T h o m a s , 1 9 F .3 d 4 9 8 , 5 0 1 (1 0 th C ir . 1 9 9 4 ). O kl ahoma has cl ear l ycr eat ed a l i bertyi nt er es ti n good t i m e cr edi t s . W al dr on v. E vans , 861 P. 2d 311, 313 ( O kl a. C r i m . A pp. 1993) ; M i t chel l v. M aynar d, 80 F. 3d 14 33 , 14 45 (10t h C i r. 19 96 ). In this case, R hati gan l ost36 5 g oo d ti m e credi t s. T hus , hi s l i ber t yi nt er es ti n t he cr edi t s cannotbe t aken a w ay“w i thoutthe mi ni m al s a fe g u a rd s a ffo rd e d b yth e D u e P ro c e s s C la u s e o f th e F o u rt e e n th A m e n d m e n t.” M itc h e ll, 8 0 F .3 d a t 1 4 4 5 (i n te rn a l q u o ta tio n s o m itte d ). A lth o u g h R h ati g an w as e n ti tl ed to d u e p roc ess, “[ p ]ri so n d isci p li n ary p ro c e e d in g s a re n o t p a rt o f a c rim in a l p ro se c u tio n , an d th e f u ll p a n o p lyo f

rig h ts due a de fenda nti n s uch pr ocee di ngs does notappl y . ” W ol ff v. M cD onnel l , 418 U . S. 539, 556 ( 1974) . T o s at i s fydue pr oces s i n a pr i s on di s ci pl i narypr ocee di ng, “t he inm at e m ustrecei ve: ( 1) adva nce w ri t t en n oti ce of the d i sci pli narycharges; ( 2) an oppor tuni t y , w hen cons i s t entw i th i ns t i tut i onal s afe tyand corr ect i onal goal s , t o 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 for t he di s ci pl i naryact i on. ” Super i nt endent , M as s . C orr . I ns t . , W al pol e v. H i l l , 472 U . S. 445, 454 ( 1985) . Fur t her , t her e mustbe “s om e evi dence i n the r ecor d” s uppor t i ng t he cha r ge. I d. “A s cert ai ni ng w hetherthi s s t andar d i s s at i s fi ed does notr equi r e exa m i nat i on of the ent i r e r ecor d, i ndepende ntas s es s m entof theI n hi s or i gi nal pet i t i on, R hat i gan ar gued thatt he cha i n of contr ol of the 2 doct or ed s oda ca n w as notes t abl i s hed. H e does notr ai s e thi s ar gum enton appea l . E ven had he , t hi s cl ai m w oul d notbe s uffi ci entunderH i l l . 472 U . S. at 4 5 4 . - 4 - cr edi bi l i t yof w i t nes s es , orw ei ghi ng of the evi dence . I ns t ead, the r el evant ques t i on i s w hethert her e i s anyevi dence i n the r ecor d thatcoul d s uppor tthe c o n c lu s io n re a c h e d b yth e d is c ip lin a ry b o a rd .” Id . a t 4 5 5 -5 6 . R h a tig a n a lleg e s th a t p riso n o fficia ls e rre d b yfa ili n g to c o n d u c t a l abor at or yt es tt o det erm i ne w hetherthe doct or ed s oda ca n found i n hi s r oom w as a c tu a lly u s e d to s m o k e m a riju a n a . U n d e r H ill, th is is n o t a d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n . 2 R h a tig a n d o e s n o t alle g e a n yfa ilu re o n th e p a rt o f p riso n o fficia ls to g iv e h im not i ce, an oppor tuni t yt o cal l w i tnes s es and pr es entevi dence , ora w r i t t en sta tem e n t ex p lain in g th e d e c isio n . F u rth e r, th e re is c lea rly“ so m e e v id e n c e ” in t he r ecor d t hatR hat i gan pos s es s ed mar ij uana; O ffi cerH err el l r eport ed thatt he can di s cover ed i n R hat i gan’ s r oom s m el l ed of mar ij uana a nd the ca n i t s el f had been modi fi ed s uch thati tcoul d be us ed fors m oki ng m ar ij uana. T hus , t her e i s no d u e p ro c e s s v io la tio n . F or the reasons setforth ab ov e, R hati gan ’s requestfor a C O A i s DENI ED and t he ap peal i s DI S M I S S ED . A p p e llan t’s m o tio n to p ro c e e d in fo rm a p a u p e ris i s GR ANTED . ENT ERE D FOR T HE COURT C arlos F . L u ce ro C i r cui tJ udge