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 state
prison disciplinary ruling. [ECF 3]. In 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). As petitioner cannot meet either prerequisite, his
federal habeas corpus application should be denied.
advises that on November 4, 2015, he was convicted in the
416th Judicial District Court of Collin County,
Texas of the first degree felony offense of aggravated
robbery. State v. Thomas, No. 416-80032-2015,
416-80033-2015. [ECF 3 at 2]. Review of the online Offender
Information Detail maintained by respondent confirms
petitioner was convicted of three (3) counts of aggravated
robbery. The mandatory supervision eligibility statute in
effect when petitioner committed his aggravated robbery
offenses on August 29, 2014 and August 31, 2014 stated,
“[a]n inmate may not be released to mandatory
supervision if the inmate is serving a sentence for or has
previously been convicted of . . . a first degree felony
under § 29.03[of the Texas Penal Code (Aggravated
Robbery)].” Texas Gov't Code § 508.149(a)(12)
response to Question 15 of his form habeas application,
petitioner also acknowledges that for his original
conviction, there was a judicial finding that he used or
exhibited a deadly weapon during the commission of his
offense. [ECF 3 at 5]. The mandatory supervision eligibility
statute in effect when petitioner committed his aggravated
robbery offenses 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 . . . an
offense for which the judgment contains an affirmative
[deadly weapon] finding.” Tex. Gov't Code §
508.149(a)(1) (2014). In response to Question 16 of his form
habeas application, petitioner concedes he is not eligible
for release to mandatory supervision. [ECF 3 at 5].
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.
habeas application, in response to Question 18 of the form,
petitioner indicated he did not lose previously earned
good-time days. [ECF 3 at 5]. As the law in the Fifth Circuit
currently stands, petitioner did not receive a punishment
sanction that included the forfeiture of previously
accrued good time credits; thus, petitioner cannot
receive federal habeas corpus relief The punishment
petitioner was assessed in the disciplinary proceeding,
including recreation, commissary, phone and property
restrictions, as well as the reduction in Line Class and
custody level, merely constituted changes in the conditions
of his confinement and did 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 (1995); Madison v.
Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1997).
Petitioner's habeas application should be DENIED.
the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge to the Senior United States District Judge
that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by
petitioner WILLIAM HOWARD THOMAS 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.
NOTICE 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 ...