Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Badall v. Davis

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

February 27, 2018

FRANK BADALL, Petitioner,
v.
LORI DAVIS, et al, Respondents.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          KENNETH M. HOYT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Petitioner Frank Badall is an inmate in the custody of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice. He filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the results of a prison disciplinary hearing resulting in the forfeiture of 45 days of accrued good time credit, a reduction in time earning class, and other penalties. He does not challenge his conviction or sentence.

         This case is before the Court on Badall's petition, respondent's motion for summary judgment, and Badall's response. Having carefully considered the petition, the motion, the response, all the arguments and authorities submitted by the parties, and the entire record, the Court is of the opinion that respondent's motion should be granted and Badall's petition should be dismissed.

         I. Background

         Badall's petition concerns forfeiture of accumulated time credits, reduction in time earning status, and loss of privileges. He does not challenge his conviction or sentence. Therefore, no discussion of the facts of his crime and trial is necessary.

         On June 29, 2016, Badall was found guilty of the disciplinary offense of possessing tobacco. Badall filed Step One and Step Two Grievances appealing the result of the disciplinary hearing. The grievances were denied.

         II. Analysis

         Badall contends that he was denied due process because, he claims, there was no evidence to connect him to the contraband tobacco found by prison authorities.

         A. Standard of Review

         “As a general principle, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, relating to summary judgment, applies with equal force in the context of habeas corpus cases.” Clark v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 760, 764 (5th Cir. 2000). Summary judgment is appropriate if there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and judgment is appropriate as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). In considering a motion for summary judgment, the “evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Once the movant presents evidence demonstrating entitlement to summary judgment, the nonmovant must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586-87 (1986).

         B. Non-Cognizable Claims

         Badall's claims concerning all penalties imposed other than loss of good time credit are not cognizable in habeas corpus. “If ‘a favorable determination . . . would not automatically entitle [the prisoner] to accelerated release, ' Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir.1995) (per curiam), the proper vehicle is a § 1983 suit.” Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820©21 (5th Cir. 1997).

         While Badall's reduction in time earning status could possibly have an impact on his eligibility for release to mandatory supervision, any potential impact is too speculative to warrant habeas corpus relief. “[T]he timing of [petitioner]'s release is too speculative to afford him a constitutionally cognizable claim to the ‘right' to a particular time-earning status . . . .. Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 959 (5th Cir. 2000). The penalties, such as recreation restriction, that have no bearing on Badall's release date clearly do not “automatically entitle [the prisoner] to accelerated release.” Therefore, these claims are not cognizable.

         C. Sufficiency ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.