Summary
relying on Eleventh Circuit precedent, including Gomez v. United States, 899 F.2d 1124, 1126 (11th Cir. 1990), to find that disciplinary action not resulting in loss of good conduct time cannot be challenged under § 2241
Summary of this case from Seugasala v. Warden, FCC Coleman, USP IIOpinion
Case No. 1:16-cv-01750-LSC-HNJ
10-17-2017
TYRONE O. BRYANT, Petitioner v. WARDEN CLAY, Respondent
MEMORANDUM OPINION
On September 15, 2017, the magistrate judge entered a report and recommendation and allowed the parties therein fourteen (14) days in which to file objections to the magistrate judge's recommendations. No party has filed objections to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
After careful consideration of the record in this case and the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the court hereby ADOPTS the report of the magistrate judge. The court further ACCEPTS the recommendations of the magistrate judge that the court deny the petition for writ of habeas corpus.
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Rules Governing § 2254 Cases, the Court has evaluated the claims within the petition for suitability for the issuance of a certificate of appealability (COA). See 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
The Rules Governing § 2254 Cases also apply to cases pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing § 2254 Cases. --------
Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure provides that when an appeal is taken by a petitioner, the district judge who rendered the judgment "shall" either issue a COA or state the reasons why such a certificate should not issue. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), a COA may issue only when the petitioner "has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." This showing can be established by demonstrating that "reasonable jurists could debate whether (or for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner" or that the issues were "adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further." Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000) (citing Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 & n.4 (1983)). For procedural rulings, a COA will issue only if reasonable jurists could debate whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and whether the court's procedural ruling was correct. Id.
The Court finds that reasonable jurists could not debate its resolution of the claims presented in this habeas corpus petition. For the reasons stated in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, the Court DECLINES to issue a COA with respect to any claims.
The Court will enter a separate order in conformity with this Memorandum Opinion.
DONE AND ORDERED ON OCTOBER 17, 2017.
/s/_________
L. SCOTT COOGLER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
160704