United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division
ANSEL W. JOHNSON,  Petitioner,
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
ANN RENO JUDGE
has filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus by a Person in State Custody challenging a prison
disciplinary ruling wherein petitioner lost 30 days
previously accrued good time credits as
punishment. Petitioner is presently incarcerated at
the Jordan Unit in Gray County, Texas pursuant to two (2)
Tarrant County convictions for the offenses of possession of
controlled substances, and the 4-year sentences assessed
therein on May 4, 2017. State v. Johnson, Nos.
order to challenge a prison disciplinary adjudication by way
of a federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus, a
petitioner must, at a minimum, be eligible for mandatory
supervised release and have received a
punishment sanction that included forfeiture of previously
accrued good-time credits. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211
F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000). In his habeas application, in
response to Question 16 of the form, petitioner acknowledges
he is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision. [ECF
3 at 5]. Review of the online TDCJ Offender Information
Detail reflects petitioner was twice convicted of aggravated
robbery with a deadly weapon on January 29, 1988. Since
September 1996, an inmate may not be released to mandatory
supervision if the inmate has been previously convicted of
aggravated robbery. See Texas Code of Crim. Proc.
art. 42.18 § 8(c)(10) (1996); currently Texas
Gov't Code § 508.149 (a)(12)(2017). As petitioner is
not eligible for mandatory supervised release, he may not
challenge a prison disciplinary proceeding by way of a
federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See
Malchi, 211 F.3d at 958. Petitioner's habeas
application should be DENIED.
the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge to the United States Senior District Judge
that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by
petitioner ANSEL W. JOHNSON be DENIED.
United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of
these Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation to each party
by the most efficient means available. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
ENTERED April 6, 2018.
party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and
recommendation. In the event parties wish to object, they are
hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is
fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by
the “entered” date directly above the signature
line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed.R.Civ.P.
5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by electronic means, Fed.R.Civ.P.
5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before
the fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is
filed as indicated by the “entered”
date. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed.R.Civ.P.
72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled
“Objections to the Findings, Conclusions and
Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the
written objections with the United States District Clerk and
serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A
party's failure to timely file written objections shall
bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error,
from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual
findings, legal conclusions, and recommendation set forth by
the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district court.
See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79
F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded
by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1),
as recognized in ACS Recovery Servs., Inc. v.
Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012);
Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir.
 Petitioner has represented to the
Court that his name is “Ansel Wre Johnson.” A
review of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice website
lists petitioner as “Angel W. Johnson.” The Clerk
docketed this case using the name provided by petitioner and
the undersigned will also use this name.
Other punishment petitioner was
assessed in the disciplinary proceeding merely constituted
changes in the conditions of his confinement and does not
implicate the Due Process Clause of the United States
Constitution as required for review in a federal habeas
corpus proceeding. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472, 478, 115 S.Ct. 2293, ...