Opinion
No. 3:03-CV-2629-D.
April 20, 2004
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and an Order of the Court in implementation thereof, subject cause has previously been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge follow:
I. BACKGROUND
A. Nature of the Case : This is a petition for habeas corpus relief filed by a state inmate pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
B. Parties : Petitioner is currently incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice — Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID). Respondent is Douglas Dretke, Director of TDCJ-CID.
C. Procedural Background : On March 16, 1982, a jury found petitioner guilty of attempted capital murder in Cause No. F81-12123-MKQ and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. (Pet. Writ of Habeas Corpus (Pet.) at 2.) His conviction was affirmed on appeal in 1983. ( Id. at 3.) On February 8, 2003, petitioner filed a state writ raising claims related to a denial of release on mandatory supervision. ( Id. ¶ 11.) The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals denied that writ on May 28, 2003. ( Id.) In October 2003, petitioner filed the instant federal petition for writ of habeas corpus and a supporting memorandum to challenge the denial of release on mandatory supervision. ( See id. at 1, 9; Mem. Supp.)
D. Substantive Claims : In his sole claim for relief, petitioner asserts that he is being denied a protected liberty interest in release to mandatory supervision. (Pet. at 7.)
E. Evidentiary Hearing : Upon review of the pleadings filed herein, an evidentiary hearing appears unnecessary.
II. RELIEF UNDER § 2254
Petitioner alleges constitutional violations resulting from a denial of release on mandatory supervision. Section 2254(a) of Title 28 of the United States Code directs the courts to "entertain an application for a writ of habeas corpus in behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court only on the ground that he is in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States."
The district court has the power under Rule 4 to examine and dismiss frivolous habeas petitions prior to any answer or other pleading by the state. This power is rooted in "the duty of the court to screen out frivolous applications and eliminate the burden that would be placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer."Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 1999) (quoting Rule 4 Advisory committee Notes).
In this instance, petitioner contends that he became eligible for release on mandatory supervision once he served twenty calendar years on his life sentence. (Mem. Supp. at 4-5.) However, "[f]ederal habeas relief cannot be had `absent the allegation by a plaintiff that he or she has been deprived of some right secured to him or her by the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States.'" Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1995)). There is no federal constitutional right to release on mandatory supervision when one has received a life sentence. Prisoners "cannot show a liberty interest in an entitlement to mandatory supervision while serving life sentences." Barnes v. Cockrell, No. 3:01-CV-823-J, 2002 WL 1878548, at (N.D. Tex. Aug. 12, 2002), aff'd, ___ F.3d ___, No. 02-11001, 2003 WL 21016411 (5th Cir. Apr. 10, 2003) and cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 124 S. Ct. 819 (2003). Accordingly, there is no constitutional violation.
Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts provides that "[i]f it plainly appears from the face of the petition and any exhibit annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief in the district court, the judge shall make an order for its summary dismissal and cause the petitioner to be notified." Because petitioner asserts no constitutional violation, the Court should summarily dismiss this action under Rule 4.
III. RECOMMENDATION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS that, pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the District Court summarily DISMISS petitioner's application for habeas corpus relief, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.