Opinion
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:19-CV-350
10-17-2019
JIMMIE MARK PARROTT, JR., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, Respondent.
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, Jimmie Mark Parrott, Jr., an inmate confined at the Mark Stiles Unit with the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition be denied.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such referral, along with the record, and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b).
After careful consideration, the court finds petitioner's objections are without merit. Petitioner concedes he is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision. As a result, the punishment imposed on petitioner as a result of his disciplinary conviction does not implicate a protected liberty interest. Petitioner was not entitled to due process before receiving such punishment and his claims are without merit. See, e.g, Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 769 (5th Cir. 1997) (forfeiture of good conduct time credits earned by a prisoner who is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision does not implicate a liberty interest); Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995) ("the mere opportunity to earn good-time credits [does not] constitute a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest sufficient to trigger the protection of the Due Process Clause."). Furthermore, a reduction in custody classification does not impose an "atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 115 U.S. 472 (1995); see also Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 257-58 (5th Cir.) ("An inmate has neither a property nor liberty interest in his custody classification . . ."), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 985 (1988).
ORDER
Accordingly, the objections of the plaintiff are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct, and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A Final Judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge's recommendations.
Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying post-conviction collateral relief may not proceed unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner need not establish that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000).
In this case, petitioner has not shown that any of the issues would be subject to debate among jurists of reason. The questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued.
SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 17th day of October, 2019.
/s/_________
MARCIA A. CRONE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE