Cain v. Bridges

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
• Decided: August 19, 2025
• Docket: 25-6070
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Appellate Case: 25-6070 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 08/19/2025 Page: 1 FILED United States Court of Appeals UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT August 19, 2025 _____________________________________________ Christopher M. Wolpert Clerk of Court SAMUEL PATRICK CAIN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v. No. 25-6070 (D.C. No. 5:23-CV-01150-PRW) CARRIE BRIDGES, (W.D. Okla.)

Respondent - Appellee.

________________________________________

ORDER __________________________________________

Before BACHARACH, MORITZ, and ROSSMAN, Circuit Judges. ___________________________________________

This matter grew out of a commutation and disagreement over the

terms. But we need not resolve that disagreement because the petitioner

(Mr. Samuel Patrick Cain, Jr.) does not challenge one of the district court’s

independent rationales for denying relief.

When his sentence was commuted, Mr. Cain was serving a term of 40

years, with the final 20 years suspended. Upon issuance of the

commutation, Mr. Cain was released. But he then committed an act that

violated his terms, leading the state district court to revoke the suspended

sentence. But Mr. Cain argued that the commutation had wiped away the Appellate Case: 25-6070 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 08/19/2025 Page: 2

entirety of his sentence, including the part that had been suspended. The

state courts rejected Mr. Cain’s claim. He then filed a federal habeas

petition, but the district court denied relief.

He wants to appeal. To do so, however, he needs a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). We can grant a certificate only if

Mr. Cain has shown that the district court’s ruling was reasonably

debatable. Clark v. Oklahoma, 468 F.3d 711, 713 (10th Cir. 2006).

The district court gave two separate reasons for denying habeas

relief:

1. The claim involves state law, not federal law, and habeas relief isn’t available for violations of state law.

2. Mr. Cain failed to present his constitutional claim in state court, and it’s too late to do so now. So his constitutional claim is subject to anticipatory procedural default.

R. at 434–41, 457–61 (report and recommendation of the magistrate judge

and the district judge’s order adopting the report and recommendation).

Mr. Cain requests a certificate of appealability, challenging the first

ground. But he fails to address the second ground. So even if we were to

credit Mr. Cain’s appellate argument, we would need to affirm based on his

failure to challenge the district court’s reliance on an anticipatory

procedural default. See Lebahn v. Nat’l Farmers Union Unif. Pension Plan,

828 F.3d 1180, 1188 (10th Cir. 2016) (stating that we must affirm when the

appellants fail to challenge one of the district court’s independent grounds

2 Appellate Case: 25-6070 Document: 15-1 Date Filed: 08/19/2025 Page: 3

for dismissal). As a result, the district court’s denial of relief is not

reasonably debatable.

Certificate of appealability denied and matter dismissed.

Entered for the Court

Robert E. Bacharach Circuit Judge