Scaife v. Kansas Department of Corrections ( 2013 )

FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 23, 2013
TENTH CIRCUIT Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
JEROME T. SCAIFE,
Petitioner - Appellant, No. 13-3125
v. (D. Kansas)
KANSAS DEPARTMENT OF (D.C. No. 5:13-CV-03059-RDR)
CORRECTIONS, PRISONER
REVIEW BOARD,
Respondents - Appellees.
ORDER DENYING
CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY *
Before TYMKOVICH, ANDERSON, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges.
After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination
of this matter. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of
the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the
citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be
cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
Petitioner and applicant, Jerome T. Scaife, a Kansas state parolee
proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (“COA”) to enable him to
appeal the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. That petition sought to
have his parole terminated. Finding that Mr. Scaife does not meet the
requirements for the issuance of a COA, we deny him a COA and dismiss this
appeal.
As summarized recently by the Kansas Court of Appeals:
On November 3, 1989, Scaife was sentenced to 10 to 40 years’
imprisonment for aggravated robbery. At a hearing on October 28,
1994, the district court found him “ineligible for Retroactive
Application of Sentencing Guidelines.” Scaife was granted parole
twice but ended up back in prison by violating his parole conditions.
Since being released on parole for a third time, he has earned a
professional cooking certificate, bought a home, and filed several
requests for early discharge.
Scaife v. Kansas Dept. of Corr., 286 P.3d 1160 (Kan. Ct. App. 2012).
Mr. Scaife filed the instant 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, apparently seeking to
have his parole terminated. The district court dismissed the petition, finding that
the state of Kansas’s highest court had rejected the issues presented in reliance on
an independent and adequate state procedural ground. The district court did not
grant Mr. Scaife a COA but it granted him the right to proceed in forma pauperis
on appeal. This request for a COA followed.
“A petition under . . . 28 U.S.C. § 2241 attacks the execution of a sentence
rather than its validity and must be filed in the district where the prisoner is
-2-
confined.” Licon v. Ledezma, 638 F.3d 1303, 1311 (10th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Bradshaw v. Story, 86 F.3d 164, 166 (10th Cir. 1996)). Thus, a court may grant
habeas corpus relief where an applicant is “in custody in violation of the
Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3).
Mr. Scaife must obtain a COA in order to appeal the district court’s denial
of his habeas petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2253. A COA may be issued only upon a
“substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural
grounds and does not reach the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claims, a
COA may issue only when “the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason
would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the
district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000).
The district court described Mr. Scaife’s state proceedings as follows:
The materials attached to the [§ 2241] petition show petitioner
pursued relief in the state courts pursuant to K.S.A. 60-1501. The
state district court conducted a hearing and determined that petitioner
was advised in 1993 that he was not eligible to have his sentence
converted under the Kansas Sentencing Guidelines, that a hearing
held in 1994 reached the same conclusion, and that the petition under
60-1501 was not timely, because the statute requires that an action be
commenced within 30 days from the date the challenged action
becomes final. The Kansas Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal
of the petition, finding that petitioner failed to contact the Sentence
Computation Unit before he commenced the action under 60-1501,
-3-
and that he had failed to file the petition for over 17 years after the
district court found him ineligible for sentence conversion. The
Kansas Supreme Court denied review in March 2013.
Order at 1-2, R. Vol. 1 at 74-75. Having found that Mr. Scaife’s claims were
determined to be procedurally barred by the Kansas state courts, the district court
then found “no ground to excuse the petitioner’s procedural default.” Id. at 75.
While Mr. Scaife’s pleadings are not easily understood or clearly
articulated, we nonetheless can determine that the district court’s decision is
amply supported by the law and the record. Its propriety could not be the subject
of debate among reasonable jurists.
For the foregoing reasons, we DENY a COA and DISMISS this matter.
ENTERED FOR THE COURT
Stephen H. Anderson
Circuit Judge
-4-