Opinion
No. 3:04-CV-1479-L.
July 27, 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, this cause has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Type of Case: This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus brought by a state prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Parties: Petitioner is presently incarcerated at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID) in Livingston, Texas. Respondent is the Director of TDCJ-CID. No process has been issued in this case.
Statement of Case: In 2001, Petitioner was convicted of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon in Dallas County, Texas. Punishment was assessed at ten years imprisonment. (Petition at ¶¶ 1-5).
In this action, Petitioner does not challenge his conviction. Instead, he attacks disciplinary sanction No. 2003180996 which he received at the Buster Cole State Jail of TDCJ-CID in 2002. (Petition ¶¶ 17-18). He was charged $20 as punishment for allegedly tearing his mattress. (Id. ¶¶ 19 and 20). Petitioner states he has exhausted his administrative remedies. (Id. ¶ 19).
In this federal habeas action, Petitioner alleges his due process rights were violated as a result of the $20 fine. He contends the mattress was torn when he received it upon his arrival at the Buster Cole State Jail. Findings and Conclusions: 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." Federal habeas relief cannot be had "absent the allegation by a [petitioner] 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." Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1059 (1996). The instant petition does not present any cognizable basis for habeas corpus relief.
Contemporaneously with the filing of this habeas action, Petitioner filed a civil rights complaint challenging the $20 fine imposed for the disciplinary action at issue in this case.See No. 3:04cv1478-D.
Prisoners charged with rule violations are entitled to certain due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment when the disciplinary action may result in a sanction that will impinge upon a liberty interest. In Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995), the Supreme Court held that a prisoner's liberty interest is "generally limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Id. at 484, 115 S.Ct. at 2300. In Texas, only sanctions that result in the loss of good-time credits for inmates who are eligible for release on mandatory supervision or that otherwise directly and adversely affect release on mandatory supervision will impose upon a liberty interest. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957-58 (5th Cir. 2000); Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997);see also Orellana, 65 F.3d at 31-33; Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 n. 5 (5th Cir. 1994).
Petitioner did not lose previously earned good-time credits because of the disciplinary action at issue in this case. Nor is he eligible for mandatory supervised release. See Petition at 16 and Tex. Govt. Code § 508.149(a)(12) (West 2000) (excluding from mandatory supervision any inmate who is convicted of aggravated robbery). Therefore, Petitioner's due process claims challenging his disciplinary proceeding are not cognizable in this habeas corpus action. The District Court should summarily dismiss the habeas corpus petition with prejudice. RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that the District Court dismiss with prejudice the petition for habeas corpus relief. See Rule 4, Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Petitioner.