Whitlock v. Dir TDCJ
Filing
5
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 2 Report and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 7/20/2015. (sm, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TEXARKANA DIVISION
TARRANCE DARON WHITLOCK
§
VS.
§
DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID
§
CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:15-CV-15
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner Tarrance Daron Whitlock, a prisoner confined in the Texas Department of
Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The Court ordered that this matter be referred to the Honorable Caroline Craven, United
States Magistrate Judge, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and 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, pleadings, and all available evidence. Petitioner filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation.
The Court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and
the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the Court concludes the
objections are without merit. Petitioner alleges he was denied due process during a prison
disciplinary proceeding. Prisoners charged with rule violations are entitled to certain due process
rights when the disciplinary action results in a sanction that will impose upon a liberty interest.
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Thompson v. Cockrell, 263 F.3d 423, 425 (5th Cir.
2001). Generally, the only sanction that imposes upon a liberty interest is the loss of good time
credits for an inmate whose release on mandatory supervision will be delayed by the loss of the
credits. Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000); see also Teague v. Quarterman, 482
F.3d 769, 774 (5th Cir. 2007). In this case, the magistrate judge found that petitioner was not
entitled to due process because he is ineligible for release on mandatory supervision. In his
objections, petitioner acknowledges that he is ineligible for mandatory supervision, but argues that
the disciplinary conviction could affect future parole determinations. This argument lacks merit.
A potential delay in parole does not support a constitutional claim because there is no constitutional
expectation of release on parole in Texas. Malchi, 211 F.3d at 957.
Additionally, in this case, the petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of
appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed
unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). The
standard for granting a certificate of appealability, like that for granting a certificate of probable
cause to appeal under prior law, 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); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1982).
In making that substantial showing, the petitioner need not establish that he should prevail on the
merits. Rather, he must 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 are worthy
of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84; Avila v. Quarterman, 560 F.3d
299, 304 (5th Cir. 2009). If the petition was denied on procedural grounds, the petitioner must show
2
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 is 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).
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 advanced by the petitioner are not novel and
have been consistently resolved adversely to his position. In addition, the questions presented are
not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing
.
to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability.
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. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the magistrate judge’s
recommendation. A certificate of appealability will not be issued.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 20th day of July, 2015.
____________________________________
ROBERT W. SCHROEDER III
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?