United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Beaumont Division
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S
OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
Heartfield, United States District Judge.
Leonard Childs, a prisoner confined in the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petitioner challenged the
constitutionality of a disciplinary proceeding.
court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable
Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, for
consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this
court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The
magistrate judge recommends denying the petition.
court has received and considered the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with
the record and the pleadings. The petitioner filed objections
to the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.
court has conducted a de novo review of the
objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable
law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). After careful
consideration of all the pleadings and the relevant case law,
the court concludes that the petitioner's objections lack
charged with rule violations are entitled to certain due
process rights when the disciplinary action results in a
sanction that will impose upon a liberty interest. Sandin
v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Thompson v.
Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423, 425 (5th Cir. 2001). Generally,
the only sanction that imposes upon a liberty interest is the
loss of good time credits for an inmate whose release on
mandatory supervision will be delayed by the loss of the
credits. Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th
Cir. 2000); see also Teague v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d
769, 774 (5th Cir. 2007). In his petition, the petitioner
reported that he is not eligible for release on mandatory
supervision, and he did not lose good time credits as a
result of the disciplinary conviction. Based on the
information provided by the petitioner, the magistrate judge
concluded that the petitioner was not entitled to due process
before the imposition of sanctions.
objections, the petitioner states that he is, in fact,
eligible for release on mandatory supervision. However, the
petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief because he did
not lose good time credits as a result of the disciplinary
the petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a
certificate of appealability. An appeal from a judgment
denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed unless a
judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). The standard for
granting a certificate of appealability, like that for
granting a certificate of probable cause to appeal under
prior law, requires the petitioner to make a substantial
showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right.
See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000);
Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir.
2004); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880,
893 (1982). In making that substantial showing, the
petitioner need not establish that he should prevail on the
merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are
subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could
resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the
questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed
further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84; Avila v.
Quarterman, 560 F.3d 299, 304 (5th Cir. 2009). If the
petition was denied on procedural grounds, the petitioner
must show that jurists of reason would find it debatable: (1)
whether the petition raises a valid claim of the denial of a
constitutional right, and (2) whether the district court was
correct in its procedural ruling. Slack, 529 U.S. at
484; Elizalde, 362 F.3d at 328. Any doubt regarding
whether to grant a certificate of appealability is resolved
in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty
may be considered in making this determination. See
Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir. 2000).
the petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by
his claims are subject to debate among jurists of reason, or
that a procedural ruling was incorrect. In addition, the
questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to
proceed further. Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make
a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate
the petitioner's objections (document no. 5) are
OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and
the report of the magistrate judge (document no. 3) is
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in
this case in accordance with the ...