Garrett v. Hobbs
ORDER approving and adopting in their entirety as this Court's findings in all respects 10 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition; denying the 2 4 5 6 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, as amended, and that this habeas action is dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is denied pursuant to Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts. Signed by Judge Kristine G. Baker on 5/29/2013. (dmn)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
PINE BLUFF DIVISION
Case No. 5:13-cv-00039 KGB-JTR
RAY HOBBS, Director,
Arkansas Department of Correction
The Court has reviewed the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition submitted
by United States Magistrate Judge J. Thomas Ray and the filed objections. After carefully
considering these documents and making a de novo review of the record in this case, the Court
concludes that the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition should be, and hereby are,
approved and adopted in their entirety as this Court’s findings in all respects. Judgment will be
Victoria Garrett’s objections include a document that the Arkansas Department of
Corrections (“ADC”) describes as “commitment AE-001 which controls your TE date only”
(Dkt. No. 11-1). As set forth in the Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition, the TE
date is the date when Ms. Garrett becomes eligible for transfer from the ADC’s traditional
correctional facilities to community correction facilities, programming, and supervision (Dkt.
No. 10, at 7-8).
The Court agrees that, at most, Ms. Garrett alleges that her disciplinary
convictions have resulted in a delay in her being considered for parole or transfer. A prisoner
does not have a constitutional right to the possibility of parole or to participation in discretionary
prison programs that might increase his or her chance for being released on parole. Greenholtz v.
Inmates of Nebraska Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 9-11 (1979); Persechini v. Callaway,
651 F.3d 802, 807-08 (8th Cir. 2011). Ms. Garrett has failed to state a viable habeas claim
arising from any of the disciplinary convictions she seeks to challenge in this action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT this petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28
U.S.C. § 2254, as amended (Dkt. Nos. 2, 4, 5, 7), is denied, and that this habeas action is
dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT a certificate of appealability is denied pursuant to
Rule 11(a) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
SO ORDERED THIS the 29th day of May, 2013.
KRISTINE G. BAKER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?