Opinion
No. 2:04-CV-0170.
October 4, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner HORACE JEFFERY has filed with this Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging two (2) prison disciplinary proceedings which took place at the Clements Unit in Potter County, Texas on June 14, 2004. As of the date the instant habeas application was filed, petitioner remained incarcerated at the Clements Unit. Petitioner did not provide the Court with information concerning his underlying conviction and sentence. However, reference to a prior case petitioner filed with this Court, Cause No. 2:98-CV-144, reveals petitioner is confined pursuant to a conviction for the felony offense of burglary of a habitation with intent to commit theft out of the 174th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas, and the resultant twenty-five (25) years sentence.
In order to challenge a prison disciplinary adjudication by way of a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must, at a minimum, be eligible for mandatory supervised release and have received a punishment sanction which included forfeiture of previously accrued good time credits. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000). In his application, and in his response to a show cause order from the Court, petitioner acknowledges he did not lose any previously earned good-time credits as a result of the June 14, 2004 disciplinary proceedings. Petitioner instead maintains that as he was ordered to "Remain Line 3" in both disciplinary hearing proceedings, and must remain at this line class, which does not earn good time credits, for two (2) years, he has, in effect, lost two (2) years of good time. The difference in petitioner's time-earning status, although resulting in the loss of opportunity to earn additional good time credits which might lead to an earlier parole eligibility date, which might then lead to his conditional release on parole, constitutes a collateral consequence which has been held to be too speculative to warrant federal court relief. Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied sub. nom, Luken v. Johnson, 517 U.S. 1196, 116 S.Ct. 1690, 134 L.Ed.2d 791 (1996) (the possibility that an inmate's time-earning class "would affect when he was ultimately released from prison `is simply too attenuated to invoke the procedural guarantees of the Due Process Clause.'"). While petitioner's time-earning status is less attenuated from his mandatory release than release on parole, the timing of petitioner's release is still too speculative to afford him a constitutionally cognizable claim to the "right" to a particular time-earning status. Malchi, 211 F.3d at 959. Petitioner has not, and cannot, show that a change in his time-earning class "would automatically shorten his sentence or lead to his immediate release." Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 821 (5th Cir. 1997). Consequently, to the extent petitioner challenges his reduction in class, petitioner cannot be afforded federal habeas relief.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner HORACE JEFFERY be DENIED.INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE
The United States District Clerk is directed to send a file-marked copy of this Report and Recommendation to petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.