United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division
MICHAEL E. GIEGER, #577721
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Clark, United States District Judge.
Michael E. Geiger, an inmate confined in the Texas prison
system, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled
and numbered petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging
a prison disciplinary case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The petition was referred to United States Magistrate Judge
John D. Love, who issued a Report and Recommendation
concluding that the petition should be denied. Mr. Geiger has
Geiger is challenging a December 2013 prison disciplinary
case. In his habeas petition, Mr. Geiger asserts he lost 665
days of good time. (Dkt. #1, p. 5). He asserts that he is
entitled to federal habeas corpus relief because he was
denied the due process right to be heard and to hear the
evidence against him. Magistrate Judge Love found that he was
not entitled to relief because a protected liberty interest
was not involved in this case. In his objections, Mr. Geiger
states that the Magistrate Judge has misstated the facts of
Geiger may not obtain federal habeas relief with respect to a
prison disciplinary case unless he has been deprived of a
right secured by the United States Constitution or the laws
of the United States. Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d
953, 957 (5th Cir. 2000). As a threshold matter, he must show
that the punishment he received encroached upon a liberty
interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472, 484-85, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300-01 (1995). An inmate is not
entitled to the procedural protections afforded by the
Constitution unless he shows he was denied a protected
liberty interest. Id. at 487, 115 S.Ct. at 2302. The
Court held that “discipline in segregated confinement
did not present the type of atypical, significant deprivation
in which a state may conceivably create a liberty
interest.” Id. at 486, 115 S.Ct. at 2301.
Following Sandin, the Fifth Circuit has regularly
considered whether the circumstances surrounding an
inmate's disciplinary case involve a protected liberty
interest. A protected liberty interest is at stake only if a
prisoner loses good time and is eligible for release on
mandatory supervision. See, e.g., Teague v.
Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769, 777 (5th Cir. 2007);
Malchi, 211 F.3d at 957-58; Dorsey v.
McFarlin, 609 F. App'x 266, 267 (5th Cir. 2015);
Bagby v. Karriker, 539 F. App'x 468, 469 (5th
Cir. 2013) (Because the inmate “was ineligible for
release on mandatory supervision, the district court did not
err in finding that [he] failed to state a due process claim
with respect to the loss of his good-time credits.”).
present case, Mr. Geiger is not eligible for release on
mandatory supervision because he is serving a Life sentence
out of Dawson County for the offense of assault on a public
servant.Geiger v. State, No. 11-11-242-CR,
2013 WL 5522270 (Tex. App.-Eastland 2013, pet ref'd). He
is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision due to
his Life sentence. Arnold v. Cockrell, 306 F.3d 277,
279 (5th Cir. 2002).
objections, Mr. Geiger only mentions that he is serving a
40-year sentence out of Dallas County for Aggravated
Kidnapping. Although he does not acknowledge his Life
sentence, it does not affect the Magistrate Judge's
analysis that Mr. Geiger is not eligible for release on
mandatory supervision. A sentence for Aggravated Kidnapping
is also not eligible for release on mandatory supervision.
See Tex. Gov't Code § 508.149(a)(4); Tex.
Penal Code § 20.04.
these circumstances, a protected liberty interest is not at
stake. He is not entitled to the procedural protections
afforded by the Constitution, and he is not entitled to have
his due process claims considered by this court. Mr. Geiger
is not required to acknowledge his Life sentence for assault
on a public servant as this court is permitted to rely on
case rulings and public records. Fin. Acquisition Ptnrs
v. Blackwell, 440 F.3d 278, 286 (5th Cir. 2006) (courts
“are permitted to rely on matters of public
record.”). Mr. Geiger simply may not obtain federal
habeas corpus relief with respect to his disciplinary case
due to the absence of a protected liberty interest.
Geiger also objects to the Report and Recommendation
asserting that the Magistrate Judge erred in finding that Mr.
Geiger lost 665 days in good time from a December 2013
disciplinary case. Mr. Geiger now asserts that he lost the
665 days of good time “way back in 1995.” Mr.
Geiger further asserts that he is not an escapee; however, in
his petition, he states he was “forced to move cell to
cell each week as escapee.” (Dkt. #1, p. 5). Mr. Geiger
further complains in his objections about his housing in
administrative segregation and the restrictions on his daily
activities because of his classification. These objections
are inconsequential because Mr. Geiger does not have a
protected liberty interest because he is ineligible for
release on mandatory supervision; thus, Mr. Geiger's
objections are overruled. Mr. Geiger is not eligible for
release on mandatory supervision; and thus, he has failed to
state a due process claim with regard to his habeas petition.
Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains his proposed
findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition of
such action, has been presented for consideration, and having
made a de novo review of the objections raised by
Mr. Geiger to the Report, the court is of the opinion that
the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are
correct, and Mr. Geiger's objections are without merit.
It is therefore
that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is
DENIED and the case is
DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of
appealability is DENIED. All motions not
previously ruled on are DENIED.
ORDERED and SIGNED.
 Mr. Geiger is also serving a 35-year
sentence out of Bee County for the offense of aggravated
assault on a correctional officer, State v. Geiger,
Cause B93-MO-150PRB; a 40-year sentence out of Dallas County
for aggravated kidnapping, State v. Geiger, Cause
No. F91-00156-TR; and a 25-year sentence for assault on a