Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Parker v. Davis

United States District Court, S.D. Texas, Houston Division

July 3, 2019

STEVE VIC PARKER, Petitioner
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Respondent.

          MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

          Kenneth M. Hoyt United States District Judge.

         This case is before the Court on Petitioner Steve Vic Parker's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and Respondent Lorie Davis' Motion for Summary Judgment. Having carefully considered the Petition, the Motion, Parker's response to the motion, and the arguments and authorities submitted by the parties, the Court is of the opinion that Respondent's motion should be GRANTED, and Parker's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus should be DENIED.

         I. Background

         The relevant facts are not in dispute. Parker was convicted in 1991 of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle and was sentenced to 20 years imprisonment. He was free on mandatory supervision from that sentence when he was arrested for theft. On October 13, 2010, he was convicted of theft and sentenced to seven years imprisonment. The seven year term for theft was imposed to run consecutively to the 20 year sentence imposed in 1991. See SH-23 (Doc. # 21-59) at 72.

         Parker was denied parole on the theft charge. He contends that this denial occurred without a hearing or notice in violation of his right to due process of law.

         Parker also contends that the Texas Department of Criminal Justice has improperly calculated his good time credit. He contends that this, too, constitutes a violation of due process.

         II. The Summary Judgment Standard

         “As a general principle, Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, relating to summary judgment, applies with equal force in the context of habeas corpus cases.” Clark v. Johnson, 202 F.3d 760, 764 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 831 (2000). In ordinary civil cases a district court considering a motion for summary judgment is required to construe the facts in the case in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). Where, however, a state prisoner's factual allegations have been resolved against him by express or implicit findings of the state courts, and the prisoner fails to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the presumption of correctness established by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1) should not apply, it is inappropriate for the facts of a case to be resolved in the petitioner's favor. See Marshall v. Lonberger, 459 U.S. 422, 432 (1983); Sumner v. Mata, 449 U.S. 539, 547 (1981). In reviewing factual determinations of the Texas state courts, this court is bound by such findings unless an exception to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is shown.

         III. Analysis

         Parker's petition raises two claim for relief. He contends that he was denied parole without due process of law, and that TDCJ improperly calculated his good time credit.

         Parker raised his parole claim in a state habeas corpus application. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals (“TCCA”) dismissed the application as successive under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 11.07 § 4 . See SH-27 (Doc. # 21-73).

         The procedural default doctrine may bar federal review of a claim. “When a state court declines to hear a prisoner's federal claims because the prisoner failed to fulfill a state procedural requirement, federal habeas is generally barred if the state procedural rule is independent and adequate to support the judgment.” Sayre v. Anderson, 238 F.3d 631, 634 (5th Cir. 2001). The Supreme Court has noted that

[i]n all cases in which a state prisoner had defaulted his federal claims in state court pursuant to an independent and adequate state procedural rule, federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate cause for the default and actual prejudice as a result of the alleged violation of federal law, or demonstrate that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice.

Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991). “This doctrine ensures that federal courts give proper respect to state procedural rules.” Glover v. Cain, 128 F.3d 900, 902 (5th Cir. 1997) (citing Coleman, 501 U.S. at 750-51), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1125 (1998); see also Edwards v. Carpenter, 529 U.S. 446, 451 (2000) (finding the cause and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.