United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division
ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
CLARK, SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE
Deric Bernard McLaurine, a prisoner confined at the Polunsky
Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division, brought this petition for
writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable
Zack Hawthorn, 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 the pleadings and the relevant case law, the
Court concludes that the petitioner's objections lack
petitioner alleges that prison officials erroneously assigned
him a “security precaution designator” because he
was considered an escape risk. The petitioner contends that
the security precaution designator affects his classification
and may affect future parole decisions.
are entitled to certain due process rights if a disciplinary
action results in a sanction that will impose upon a liberty
interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84
(1995). However, the imposition of a security precaution
designator does not implicate a liberty interest because it
affects the conditions of confinement, not the duration of
confinement. Bellows v. Director, 2015 WL 4187206,
at *1 (E.D. Tex. July 8, 2015). In addition, there is no
constitutional expectancy of parole in Texas. Madison v.
Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768-69 (5th Cir. 1997). Therefore,
the petitioner did not have a right to due process before he
was assigned the security precaution designator.
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. 8) 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. 6) is
ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in
this case in accordance with the ...