Ali v. Tucker

Filing 8

ORDER Overruling Objection and adopting 3 Report and Recommendations. A certificate of appealability shall not issue in thismatter.. Signed by District Judge Thad Heartfield on 10/10/19. (fal, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
BEAUMONT DIVISION
SONNI ALI

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18cv109

ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Sonni Ali, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled petition for writ of habeas
corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner asserts he was denied due process of law in
connection with a prison disciplinary conviction.
The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States
Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, 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 recommending the petition be denied.
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. As petitioner states he is not eligible for
release on mandatory supervision, the sanctions imposed as a result of his disciplinary conviction
did not impose an atypical or significant hardship. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995).
Petitioner was therefore not entitled to due process of law in connection with his disciplinary
proceeding.
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 denying this petition in
accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
In addition, the court is of the opinion 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 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for 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; Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323,
328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner need not demonstrate that he
would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues he raises are subject to
debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues raised in a different manner, or
that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S.
at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability should be resolved in
favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty imposed 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 the issue of whether his petition is meritorious
is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal issues raised by petitioner have
been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are not worth of
encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this
matter.
SIGNED this the 10 day of October, 2019.

____________________________
Thad Heartfield
United States District Judge