Bradley v. Parker

F I L E D
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
DEC 2 2004
TENTH CIRCUIT
PATRICK FISHER
Clerk
TOMMY E. BRADLEY,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v. No. 04-6219
RANDY PARKER; ATTORNEY (D.C. No. 04-CV-00307-R)
GENERAL OF THE STATE OF (W.D. Oklahoma)
OKLAHOMA,
Respondents-Appellees.
ORDER*
Before TACHA, Chief Judge, BRISCOE, and HARTZ, Circuit Judges.
Tommy E. Bradley, a state prisoner appearing pro se, seeks a certificate of
appealability (COA) to appeal the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas
petition. We deny the request for a COA and dismiss the appeal.
Issuance of a COA is jurisdictional. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336
(2003). A COA can issue only “if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the
denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). “A petitioner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason could disagree with the district court's
*
This order is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata, and collateral estoppel.
resolution of his constitutional claims or that jurists could conclude the issues presented
are adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.” Miller-El, 537 U.S. at 327.
After careful review of all of the filings and the record on appeal, we conclude the
requirements for issuance of a COA have not been met.
Bradley is serving a controlling five-year sentence for possession of a firearm by a
felon and possession of a stolen vehicle. He contends he is being denied due process by
the manner in which his sentence is being executed. He asserts he was improperly
assigned to a classification level adversely affecting his ability to obtain earned credits.
The magistrate judge concluded Bradley’s claim had been procedurally defaulted in state
court and was therefore procedurally barred. Even if the merits of Bradley’s claim were
reached, the magistrate judge concluded his claim would fail. The magistrate judge found
that Bradley had not shown that any sentence credits had been removed from his
sentence, but that he “merely seeks the opportunity to earn more sentence credits based on
what he feels is an ‘unjust’ consideration of his past escape history for which he was not
disciplined or convicted.” ROA, Doc. 22 at 7. The magistrate judge cited Templeman v.
Gunter, 16 F.3d 367, 369 (10th Cir. 1994), which states: “Changing an inmate’s prison
classification ordinarily does not deprive him of liberty, because he is not entitled to a
particular degree of liberty in prison.” The district court adopted the report and
recommendation and denied relief.
We DENY the request for a COA for substantially the same reasons as stated in
2
the report and recommendation filed June 2, 2004, and the district court’s order filed June
22, 2004, and DISMISS the appeal.
Entered for the Court
Mary Beck Briscoe
Circuit Judge
3