Lott v. Davis

Filing 6

ORDER overruling objections and adopting 3 Report and Recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not be issued in this matter. Signed by Judge Ron Clark on 4/16/17. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
RHEASHAD LAMAR LOTT

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:16cv426

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Rheashad Lamar Lott, an inmate at the Stiles Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled petition for writ
of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary
proceeding.
The court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate
Judge, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable orders of this Court. The
Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
concerning this matter. The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition be dismissed.
The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Report
and Recommendation.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections. After careful consideration,
the court is of the opinion the objections are without merit. Petitioner did not lose previously
earned good conduct time credits as a result of the disciplinary conviction. A finding in his favor
would not have a direct effect on the fact or duration of his confinement. Accordingly, the
Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that petitioner may not challenge his disciplinary
conviction in a petition for writ of habeas corpus.1
1

Petitioner cites to several prior petitions he filed challenging prison disciplinary cases where the court
considered a challenge to a prison disciplinary conviction. However, in those cases, the court simply concluded
petitioner was not entitled to due process of law before receiving the punishment imposed as a result of the
disciplinary convictions. The court did not hold that a prison disciplinary conviction that did not result in the loss of

ORDER
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and
conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the court. A final judgment shall be entered in accordance with the
recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
In addition, the court is of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas relief may not proceed unless a
judge issues a certificate of appealability. See U.S.C. § 2253. The standard that must be met in order
to receive a certificate of appealability 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). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner
is not requited to demonstrate that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he need only 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 in the petition are worthy of encouragement to
proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. If the petition was dismissed 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 should be 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).
In this case, the petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject
to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions raised by petitioner have been
consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are not worthy of

good conduct time credits, and therefore did not implicate the fact or duration of petitioner’s confinement, could be
challenged in a habeas petition.

encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this
matter.

So Ordered and Signed
Apr 16, 2017