Opinion
2:04-CV-0159.
July 2, 2004
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner KENNETH LANE NEUMAN has filed with this Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging a prison disciplinary case. 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 this case, petitioner, contrary to the assertion in his petition, lost no days of good time. Further, petitioner has averred he is not eligible for mandatory release. See Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 508.149 (Vernon 2001).
A review of the documents provided by petitioner shows the punishment imposed as a result of the disciplinary proceeding included 45 days recreation loss, commissary loss and cell restriction, 15 days in solitary and reduction in class status from L2 to L3.
Petitioner did not provide the Court with any information about the nature of his underlying conviction, only that he was ineligible for mandatory release.
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 KENNETH LANE NEUMAN be DENIED.INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE and NOTIFICATION OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
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.
Any party who wishes to make objections to this Report and Recommendation must make such objections within fourteen (14) days after the filing thereof. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Rule 8(b)(3) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b), 6(e). Any such objections shall be in writing and shall specifically identify the portions of the findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objection is made, and set out fully the basis for each objection. Any objecting party shall file written objections with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party's failure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in the original Report and Recommendation shall bar him, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected — to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions set forth in this report and accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.