United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division
HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
W. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to
the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and
Rule 1(e) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules of the
United States District Court for the Western District of
Texas, Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United
States Magistrate Judges.
the Court are Petitioner's Application for Habeas Corpus
Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Document 1);
Respondent's Answer (Document 8); and Petitioner's
response (Document 14). Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has
paid the filing fee for his application. For the reasons set
forth below, the undersigned finds that Petitioner's
application for writ of habeas corpus should be dismissed.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Petitioner's Criminal History
to Respondent, the Director has custody of Petitioner
pursuant to a judgment and sentence of the 21st Judicial
District Court of Bastrop County, Texas in cause number 7976.
Petitioner was charged with and pleaded guilty to burglary of
a building. On July 29, 1993, pursuant to a plea bargain, the
trial court sentenced Petitioner to 25 years'
October 12, 2000, Petitioner was released on parole. His
parole was revoked on October 4, 2004, and Petitioner was
returned to prison. On March 29, 2011, Petitioner was
released on parole. His parole was revoked on October 23,
2015. Petitioner did not receive street-time credit for the
time he was on parole, because he did not meet his mid-point
Petitioner's Grounds for Relief
raises the following grounds for relief:
1. Petitioner's parole officer was insubordinate when he
initially charged Petitioner with failing to report and then
later claimed Petitioner was being charged with failing to
reschedule his appointment. Stated differently, Petitioner
was not provided proper notice when the alleged parole
violation of failing to report was later changed to failing
to reschedule his appointment with the parole officer;
2. After his parole was revoked in 2004, he was illegally
denied street-time credit;
3. After his parole was revoked in 2015, he was illegally
denied street-time credit; and
4. Failure to return his previously earned good time credits
upon his return to prison in 2015 violated the Ex Post Facto
not clear whether Petitioner is also attempting to raise
claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He includes in his
request for relief a demand for monetary damages. However,
that request ...