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.

Tarver v. Davis

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Fort Worth Division

July 8, 2019

GARY W. TARVER, Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          TERRY R . MEANS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

         This is a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by Petitioner, Gary W. Tarver, a state prisoner confined in the Correctional Institutions Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ), against Lorie Davis, director of TDCJ, Respondent. After having considered the pleadings, state-court records, and relief sought by Petitioner, the Court has concluded that the petition should be denied.

         I. Factual and Procedural History

         Petitioner is serving a 20-year sentence for his 2011 conviction in Hood County, Texas, No. CR11889, for felony DWI. (04SHR 78, doc. 13-10.[1]) It appears that the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (BOP) has denied Petitioner release on parole on five occasions, most recently on January 2, 2018. (Resp't's Answer, Ex. A, doc. 12-1.) In this petition, Petitioner raises the following six grounds for habeas relief:

(1) the delegation of the BOP's decision-making and “assigned statutory responsibility” to TDCJ violates Texas's separation-of-powers doctrine;
(2) the requirement that the BOP vote in favor of release on parole violates due process;
(3) TDCJ acts in bad faith by altering inmates' records to include criminal conduct that disqualifies them for consideration for parole and “building” records that are “neither accurate nor honest”;
(4) TDCJ's practice of treating good-time and work credits as discretionary usurps judicial authority in violation of Texas's separation-of-powers doctrine;
(5) there is no right to appeal the parole decision to a court of law or challenge errors in the BOP's decision; and
(6) the BOP engages in arbitrary and capricious decision-making “without disclosing eligibility criteria, the applications of guidelines or evidence relied upon.”

(Pet. 6-8, [2] doc. 1; Pet'r's Mem. 8-19, doc. 2.)

         II. Rule 5 Statement

         Respondent does not argue that the petition is successive or barred by the federal statute of limitations or that the claims are unexhausted.

         III. ...


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.