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.

Green v. Davis

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division

October 7, 2019

MARKUS A. GREEN
v.
LORIE DAVIS

          HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

          REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

          ANDREW W. AUSTIN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

         The Magistrate Judge submits this Report and Recommendation to the District Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b) and Rule 1(e) of Appendix C of the Local Court Rules. Before the Court is Petitioner's Application for Habeas Corpus Relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Document 1). Petitioner, proceeding pro se, has been granted leave to proceed in forma pauperis. For the reasons set forth below, the undersigned finds that Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus should dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

         STATEMENT OF THE CASE

         A. Petitioner's Criminal History

         The Director has custody of Petitioner pursuant to a judgment and sentence of the 167th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, in cause number 9014200. Petitioner purportedly challenges prison disciplinary case number 201801803888. On March 13, 2018, Petitioner was found guilty of the disciplinary offense of refusal to work without a legitimate reason. As a result, Petitioner asserts he lost recreational and commissary privileges for 25 days.

         B.Petitioner's Grounds for Relief

         Petitioner raises as grounds for relief:

1. He was denied his due process right to counsel during his disciplinary hearing;
2. He was denied his due process right to a jury trial;
3. He was denied his constitutional right to file a direct appeal and have appointed counsel; and
4. His rights under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments are violated every time he is found guilty of a major disciplinary violation.

         Petitioner essentially contends all major disciplinary convictions violate his constitutional rights because he should no longer be confined in prison on his original conviction. Although Petitioner appears to be challenging a disciplinary conviction, he is actually challenging his original conviction.

         DISCUSSION ...


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.