Valdez Jr v. Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 67

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Report and Recommendation 57 is ADOPTED. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 09/24/14. (mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
JOE ANTHONY VALDEZ, JR., #1580898

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:11cv651

ORDER OF DISMISSAL
Petitioner Joe Anthony Valdez, Jr., an inmate confined at the Michael Unit of the Texas
prison system, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled and numbered petition for a writ of habeas
corpus challenging a prison disciplinary case. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate
Judge Judith K. Guthrie, who issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the petition for
a writ of habeas corpus should be denied. Petitioner has filed objections.
“Federal habeas relief cannot be had absent the allegation by a plaintiff that he or she has
been deprived of some right secured to him or her by the United States Constitution or the laws of
the United States.” Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir. 2000) (citation and internal
quotation marks omitted). Petitioner has a criminal conviction for an offense which makes him
ineligible for release on mandatory supervision. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals analyzed
Texas law and specifically found that he is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision. Ex
parte Valdez, 401 S.W.3d 651, 656 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013). The punishment imposed in
Petitioner’s disciplinary case does not involve a protected liberty interest under the Due Process
Clause because he is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision. Sanders v. Smith, 111 F.
App’x 752 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004). Federal habeas relief is unavailable because Petitioner’s disciplinary
case does not involve a right secured by the United States Constitution or the laws of the United
States.
In his objections, Petitioner disputes the conclusion that he is not eligible for release on
mandatory supervision, but this Court must defer to the state court’s interpretation of its own law.
1

Arnold v. Cockrell, 306 F.3d 277, 279 (5th Cir. 2002). Because Petitioner does not have a protected
liberty interest, the Court does not need to discuss the remainder of his objections concerning the
merits of his claims.
The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains her proposed findings of fact and
recommendations for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration, and having
made a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner to the Report, the Court is of the
opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the objections of
Petitioner are without merit. Therefore the Court hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the
Magistrate Judge as the findings and conclusions of the Court. It is accordingly
.
ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (docket entry #57) is ADOPTED. It is
further
ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the case is
DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. All motions not previously
ruled on are hereby DENIED.
It is SO ORDERED.
SIGNED this 24th day of September, 2014.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2