United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Amarillo Division
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
ANN RENO, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 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 “15 or
20” days previously accrued good time credits as
punishment. [ECF 3 at 5]. Petitioner is presently
incarcerated at the Dalhart Unit in Hartley County, Texas
pursuant to a Harris County conviction for the felony offense
of aggravated assault on a public servant and the resultant
30-year sentence assessed therein on December 17, 2009.
State v. Daniels, No. 1197625.
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). Review of the online Offender
Information Detail maintained by the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice confirms petitioner is incarcerated pursuant
to the aggravated assault offense and that his projected
release date is his maximum sentence date, an indication of
his ineligibility for mandatory supervised release.
Additionally, in his habeas application, in response to
Question 16 of the form, petitioner concedes he is not
eligible for release on mandatory supervision. [ECF 3 at 5].
mandatory supervision statute in effect when petitioner
committed his aggravated assault offense on January 3, 2009
stated, “[a]n inmate may not be released to mandatory
supervision if the inmate is serving a sentence for or has
been previously convicted of “the offense of aggravated
assault.” Texas Gov't Code §
508.149(a)(7)(2009). 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 RAYMOND JOHN DANIELS 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.
OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
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.