United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Tyler Division
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CLARK, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
above entitled civil action was referred to United States
Magistrate Judge John D. Love pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
636. On February 20, 2019, the Magistrate Judge issued a
Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19), recommending that
the above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus of
Petitioner David Reyna Martinez (“Petitioner”) be
dismissed with prejudice and Petitioner be denied a
certificate of appeal sua sponte. Petitioner,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,
filed Objections (Doc. No. 25) to the Report and
Recommendation. The Court reviews de novo the
portions of the Magistrate Judge's findings to which
objections have been raised. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Having reviewed the Magistrate Judge's findings and
Plaintiff's objections, the Court
OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objections (Doc.
No. 25) and ADOPTS the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19) as the
findings of the Court.
Court reviews the objected to portions of the Magistrate
Judge's Report and Recommendation de novo.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72; 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)
(“A judge of the court shall make a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings and recommendations to which objection is
made.”). A court conducting a de novo review
examines the entire record and makes an independent
assessment under the law. Douglass v. United States Auto.
Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc),
superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1) (extending the time to file objections from
ten to fourteen days).
petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Petitioner seeks to
challenge his punishment imposed pursuant to a disciplinary
proceeding. At the disciplinary hearing, a disciplinary
hearing officer found Petitioner guilty of the offense of
defeating mechanical restraints or defeating a secure cell.
In his Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge found
that although a loss of good time credits coexisting with
Petitioner's eligibility for release on mandatory
supervision triggers dues process considerations, the record
demonstrates that the disciplinary proceeding satisfied all
necessary requirements of procedural due process.
Accordingly, the Magistrate Judge recommended that the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus be dismissed. (Doc. No.
argues that surveillance video footage will show that at the
time of the incident, the cell door was left open by officers
and the accusing officer was violating internal TDCJ policies
because he left his duty post. Petitioner further argues that
subsequent to the incident leading to the disciplinary
proceeding, TDCJ fixed or replaced doors on all cells in the
Michael Unit because they would not lock or close properly.
While this evidence may be relevant is assessing the factual
circumstances of the original incident, this evidence does
not show how Petitioner was allegedly not provided with
procedural due process. Thus, these bases do not provide a
reason entitling Petitioner to federal habeas relief.
Petitioner argues his due process rights were violated
because the “Attorney General of Texas will use a
disciplinary report, hearing tape, videotaping officers,
staff and other inmate's statement to get a indictment of
a inmate.” The Court is unclear of Petitioner's
specific basis for his argument on this ground. Nothing in
the record addresses any related indictment and Petitioner
fails to clearly explain the connection of any alleged
indictment to the instant case.
Petitioner argues that because TDCJ uses “good time
credits” as compensation for labor, Petitioner is
entitled to due process protections when deprived of good
time credits. In his Report, the Magistrate Judge correctly
recognized that the loss of good time credits may trigger a
requirement for due process protections. The Magistrate
Judge, however, ultimately concluded that Petitioner's
disciplinary proceeding satisfied all necessary requirements
of procedural due process. Petitioner's objection of this
basis fails to explain how Respondent failed to comply with
the necessary procedural due process requirements.
Petitioner objects to the April 5, 2019 deadline to submit
objections ordered by the Magistrate Judge. Petitioner argues
his unit was on lockdown and he did not have adequate time to
prepare a response. On February 20, 2019, the Magistrate
Judge issued his Report and Recommendation. (Doc. No. 19.)
Petitioner acknowledged receipt on March 5, 2019. (Doc. No.
23.) Petitioner requested a 60-day extension of time to file
objections. (Doc. No. 21.) The Court granted this request in
part and ordered Petitioner to file his objections by April
5, 2019. (Doc. No. 22.) The Court finds Petitioner was
provided with sufficient time to prepare and submit
objections for the Court's consideration.
the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge appropriately
recommended that the above-styled application for the writ of
habeas corpus be dismissed.
made a de novo review of the objected-to portions of
the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 19), the Court finds
that Plaintiffs Objections (Doc. No. 25) should be
OVERRULED and the Magistrate Judge's
Report (Doc. No. 19) should be ADOPTED.
Petitioner's application for the writ of habeas corpus is
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The ...