Opinion
2:01-CV-0172
April 1, 2002
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY
On April 27, 2001, petitioner THOMAS SOSA filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody challenging the result of an August 2000 prison disciplinary proceeding. In his pleadings, petitioner provided information that the punishment imposed included "confinement in punitive segregation, referred to "Major" disciplinary, lost ability to earn goodtime credits." In answer to question 18 of the petition, petitioner stated he did not lose previously earned good-time credits as a result of the disciplinary action he challenges.
To the extent, if any, petitioner is challenging the loss of recreation, commissary, or property privileges, a reprimand, an assessment of extra duty hours, or cell restriction, such claims do not present grounds for federal habeas corpus review. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution is not implicated by these changes in the conditions of petitioner's confinement. Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997).
To the extent, if any, petitioner is challenging a reduction in class status, or a direction that he remain at the same line class for a set period of time, such claim does not present a proper ground for federal habeas corpus review. Due Process Clause protections are not implicated by a reduction in class status. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that "the mere opportunity to earn good-time credits" does not constitute "a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest sufficient to trigger the protections of the Due Process Clause." Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1690 (1996). Petitioner's custodial classification will not "inevitably affect the duration of his sentence." Id.
Petitioner may seek to recover good time credits lost in a prison disciplinary proceeding by way of a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). However, petitioner did not lose previously earned good-time credits, nor did petitioner lose any previously earned work-time credits. He merely lost the ability to earn good time credits. Because petitioner did not lose any good time in his disciplinary proceeding, petitioner has failed to show he is presently suffering any cognizable federal constitutional deprivation to warrant habeas corpus relief
"As a general rule, only sanctions which result in loss of good conduct time credits for inmates who are eligible for release on mandatory supervision or which otherwise directly and adversely affect release on mandatory supervision will impose upon a liberty interest." Spicer v. Collins, 9 F. Supp.2d 673, 685 (E.D. Tex. 1998)( citing Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-33 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1059 (1996)). Since petitioner did not lose any good time credits, he is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
In addition, petitioner's complaints with respect to what he had identified as a "Traveling Team Assessment" appear to involve treatment administered within the psychiatric treatment facility at the TDCJ Clements Unit. These psychiatric assessments are not subject to challenge by habeas corpus in that they do not constitute disciplinary cases and did not result in the forfeiture of good time credits.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner THOMAS SOSA be DENIED.