Opinion
2:01-CV-0073.
May 10, 2001.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY
On February 16, 2001, petitioner CONRAD J. MARTINEZ filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody challenging the result of a October 3, 2000 prison disciplinary proceeding. Petitioner indicates punishment imposed as a result of the disciplinary proceeding included a reduction in class status and commissary, recreation, and cell restriction. Petitioner advises in his petition that he did not lose previously earned good-time credits.
To the extent, if any, petitioner is challenging the loss of recreation, commissary, or property privileges, a reprimand, an assessment of extra duty hours, or cell restriction, such claims do not present grounds for federal habeas corpus review. The Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution is not implicated by these changes in the conditions of petitioner's confinement. Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997).
To the extent, if any, petitioner is challenging a reduction in class status, such claim does not present a proper ground for federal habeas corpus review. Due Process Clause protections are not implicated by a reduction in class status. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has held that "the mere opportunity to earn good-time credits" does not constitute "a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest sufficient to trigger the protections of the Due Process Clause." Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S.Ct. 1690 (1996).
Petitioner's custodial classification will not "inevitably affect the duration of his sentence." Id. Petitioner may seek to recover good time credits lost in a prison disciplinary proceeding by way of a writ of habeas corpus. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973). However, petitioner has indicated he did not lose previously earned good-time credits. Because petitioner did not lose any good time in his disciplinary proceeding, petitioner has failed to show he is presently suffering any cognizable federal constitutional deprivation to warrant habeas corpus relief.
"As a general rule, only sanctions which result in loss of good conduct time credits for inmates who are eligible for release on mandatory supervision or which otherwise directly and adversely affect release on mandatory supervision will impose upon a liberty interest." Spicer v. Collins, 9 F. Supp.2d 673, 685 (E.D. Tex. 1998) ( citing Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-33 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1059 (1996)). Since petitioner has indicated he did not lose any good time credits, he is not entitled to federal habeas relief.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner CONRAD J. MARTINEZ be DENIED.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE and NOTIFICATION OF RIGHT TO OBJECT
The United States District Clerk is directed to send a file-marked copy of this Report and Recommendation to petitioner by certified mail, return receipt requested.
Any party who wishes to make objections to this Report and Recommendation must make such objections within fourteen (14) days after the filing thereof. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Rule 8(b)(3) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts; Fed.R.Civ.P. 5(b), 6(e). Any such objections shall be in writing and shall specifically identify the portions of the findings, conclusions, or recommendation to which objection is made, and set out fully the basis for each objection. Any objecting party shall file 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 to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in the original Report and Recommendation shall bar him, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions set forth in this report and accepted by the district court. Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996).
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.