Brinson v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Filing 17

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING 14 Report and Recommendations. Petitioners objections are overruled and the Report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. The writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Petitioner Cedric Brinson is hereby DENIED a certificate of appealability sua sponte. Any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby DENIED. Signed by Judge Leonard Davis on 08/06/12. cc:petr 8-07-12(mll, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
CEDRIC BRINSON

§

v.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12v66

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Petitioner Cedric Brinson, proceeding pro se, filed this application for the writ
of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. §2254 complaining of the legality of prison disciplinary action
taken against him during his confinement in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division. This Court ordered that the matter be referred to the United States Magistrate
Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local
Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States Magistrate Judges.
Brinson stated that he was found guilty of assault on an officer when in fact he had
not done so. As punishment for the offense, Brinson received 15 days of cell and commissary
restrictions, reduction in classification status from Line Class II to Line Class II, and the loss of 267
days of good time credits. Brinson stated that he was not eligible for release on mandatory
supervision.
After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending
that Brinson’s petition be dismissed because Brinson had failed to show that the punishments
imposed upon him infringed upon any constitutionally protected liberty interests, relying on Sandin
v. Conner, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2301 (1995). The Magistrate Judge observed that the punishments of cell
and commissary restrictions and a reduction in classification status did not impose atypical or

1

significant hardships upon Brinson in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life, and the loss
of good time did not implicate a protected liberty interest because Brinson is not eligible for release
on mandatory supervision. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 959 (5th Cir. 2000); Pichardo v.
Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 613 (5th Cir. 1996). The Magistrate Judge also recommended that Brinson be
denied a certificate of appealability sua sponte.
Brinson filed objections to the Report of the Magistrate Judge on July 10, 2012. In
his objections, Brinson says that he wants the Court to order TDCJ to show the video of the incident,
which he says will prove his innocence. He says that “I do understand the legal standards after
reading them as this Court pointed them out to be,” but states that he wants the Court to understand
that he is asking for what TDCJ can give back to him if so ordered. Specifically, Brinson asks that
he be released from administrative segregation, his line class restored, and that he be sent to a unit
of his choosing.
Brinson does not address the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that he had failed to show
the deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest in the punishments inflicted upon him.
He seeks relief in the form of release from administrative segregation, restoration of his classification
status, and a transfer to a different unit, but none of these are protected liberty interests. See
Pichardo, 73 F.3d at 613 (no liberty interest in being free from administrative segregation); Malchi,
211 F.3d at 958 (no liberty interest in a particular time-earning classification); Meachum v. Fano,
427 U.S. 215, 224 (1976) (no constitutional right to be confined in any particular prison unit within
the state).
Brinson asks that the Court order that TDCJ show the video of the incident, which
is in effect a request that the Court retry the disciplinary case. The Fifth Circuit has held that district
courts, in reviewing prison disciplinary proceedings, need not conduct a de novo factual review.
Smith v. Rabelais, 659 F.2d 539, 545 (5th Cir. 1981). In any event, such a review would have no
bearing on the Magistrate Judge’s recommended findings and conclusions, which rely on the fact

2

that Brinson failed to show the deprivation of a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Brinson’s
objections are without merit.
The Court has conducted a careful de novo review of the pleadings in the cause, the
Report of the Magistrate Judge, and the Petitioner’s objections thereto. Upon such de novo review,
the Court has concluded that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct and that the Petitioner’s
objections are without merit. It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Petitioner’s objections are overruled and the Report of the
Magistrate Judge (docket no. 14) is ADOPTED as the opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled application for the writ of habeas corpus be and
hereby is DISMISSED with prejudice. It is further
ORDERED that the Petitioner Cedric Brinson is hereby DENIED a certificate of
appealability sua sponte. Finally, it is
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are
hereby DENIED.
So ORDERED and SIGNED this 6th day of August, 2012.

__________________________________
LEONARD DAVIS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3