Davis v. Howerton
Filing
10
MEMORANDUM AND OPINION as set forth in following order. The Clerk is directed to serve a copy of the petition and this memorandum and order on the respondent and the Attorney General of the State of TN. Signed by District Judge Thomas W Phillips on 7/22/13. (c/m)(ABF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT KNOXVILLE
RONALD L. DAVIS,
Petitioner,
v.
No.:
3:12-cv-446
Judge Phillips
TONY HOWERTON, Warden,
Respondent.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Petitioner has filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
2254. Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee and thus his motion to proceed in forma pauperis
[Doc. 1] is DENIED as MOOT. Petitioner's motion to amend the habeas corpus petition
[Doc. 5] is GRANTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to serve a copy of the petition and this
Memorandum and Order on the respondent and the Attorney General of the State of
Tennessee. However, for the reasons stated below, the respondent shall not be required to
file an answer or other pleading to the petition and this petition is DISMISSED. Petitioner's
motion for determination of case [Doc. 9] is DENIED as MOOT.
1
Petitioner is in the custody of the Tennessee Department of Correction and currently
confined in the Northwest Correctional Complex. He challenges the fact that he has been
denied parole by the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole. In his original petition, the
challenge was based upon equal protection. In the amendment to his habeas petition,
petitioner raises a challenge under the ex post facto clause.
A state prisoner is entitled to habeas corpus relief "only on the ground that he is in
custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States." 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. Prisoners do not have a constitutional right to parole, good-time credit for
satisfactory behavior or other forms of early release. Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S.
369, 373 (1987); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974). "It is clear that state
prisoners have no federal constitutional right to parole." Gavin v. Wells, 914 F.2d 97, 98 (6th
Cir. 1990).
Petitioner is not entitled to relief in this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 and there is no
need for an evidentiary hearing. Baker v. United States, 781 F.2d 85, 92 (6th Cir. 1986);
Bryan v. United States, 721 F.2d 572, 577 (6th Cir. 1983). Because it plainly appears from
the face of the petition and the annexed exhibits that petitioner is not entitled to any habeas
corpus relief in this Court, the petition for the writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED. Rule
4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases In The United States District Courts. The
Clerk is DIRECTED to notify the petitioner of this Memorandum and Order and to close
this file. A certificate of appealability SHALL NOT ISSUE in this action. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c). The Court CERTIFIES that any appeal from this action would not be taken in
2
good faith and would be totally frivolous. Therefore, this Court hereby DENIES the
petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. See Rule 24 of the Federal Rules
of Appellate Procedure.
ENTER:
s/ Thomas W. Phillips
United States District Judge
3
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?