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
an inmate incarcerated at the Clements Unit in Potter County,
Texas, has filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of
Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody challenging
three (3) prison disciplinary rulings. Petitioner's
federal habeas application should be denied.
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). In response to Question 16 of
his amended habeas application, petitioner acknowledges he is
not eligible for release on mandatory supervision. [ECF 6 at
2]. In his original habeas application, petitioner indicated
he is currently serving a 3-year sentence for his March 28,
2017 conviction of the offense of evading arrest or detention
with a vehicle. [ECF 3 at 2]. Review of the online Offender
Information Detail maintained by the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice confirms petitioner's representations
and provides his evading arrest offense date was January 21,
2017, but also reflects petitioner was previously convicted
of the offense of robbery and assessed a 6-year sentence.
“The statute in effect when the holding offense is
committed determines an inmate's eligibility for release
on mandatory supervision.” Ex parte Thompson,
173 S.W.3d 458, 459 (Tex.Crim.App. 2005). On January 21,
2017, the date of petitioner's evading arrest offense,
the Texas mandatory supervision statute stated an inmate may
not be released to mandatory supervision if the inmate has
been previously convicted of the felony offense of robbery.
See Texas Gov't Code § 508.149 (a)(11)
(2017). As petitioner had been previously convicted of the
offense of robbery when he committed his current holding
offense of evading arrest, he is not eligible for release to
mandatory supervision. As 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 must be DENIED.
it appears petitioner did not receive a punishment sanction
that included forfeiture of previously accrued good-time
credits. In his amended habeas application, in response to
Question 18 of the form, petitioner indicated he lost
previously earned good-time days as a result of the
disciplinary proceeding. [ECF 6 at 2]. However, when
instructed to provide the exact number of previously earned
good-time days that were forfeited by the disciplinary
hearing officer as a result of his disciplinary hearings,
petitioner indicated, “6 months Line Class G4/ status
L3W.” [Id.] Petitioner also identified all
other punishment imposed as “demoted to line III,
custody raised to G4, 45 days commissary restriction, 45
[days] rec. restriction.” Petitioner's responses
appear to indicate no previously earned good-time days were
forfeited as punishment for the disciplinary infractions.
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 indicates was assessed in the
disciplinary proceeding, including recreation and commissary
restrictions, as well as the demotion in Line Class and the
increased custody level, only 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, 478 (1995); Madison
v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1997).
Petitioner's habeas application must be DENIED.
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the undersigned United States
Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the
petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner
ROLANDO GOMEZ a/k/a Roland Jesus Gomez 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.
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 ...