Henson v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING 6 Report and Recommendations. It is ORDERED that the Petitioner's 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 DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 5/10/2012. (leh, )

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

RICKY D. HENSON, #607336

§

VS.

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:12cv240

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The above-entitled and numbered motion to vacate, set aside or correct a federal sentence
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge John D. Love.
The Report of the Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations
for the disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration. Petitioner has filed objections.
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 Petitioner’s
objections are without merit. Specifically, Petitioner argues that he does not raise the issues of
commissary and cell restriction restrictions or loss of good time in his petition, but simply contends
that his due process rights were violated through the disciplinary case process. However, he misses
the point of the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation. There, the Magistrate Judge
acknowledged the substance of his argument, which is indeed focused on due process. However, due
process in the context of a prison disciplinary case is measured by whether a liberty interest has been
impinged. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558, 94 S. Ct. 2963, 41 L. Ed. 2d 935 (1974);
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 132 L. Ed. 2d 418 (1995). Under the Fifth Circuit
jurisprudence cited by the Magistrate Judge, Petitioner’s due process rights have not been violated
1

because of the limited nature of the punishment he received as a result of his disciplinary case, which
did not include, for example, loss of good time. He has not addressed this point at all, but simply
.
returns to his original focus on how his disciplinary case was conducted. His argument is therefore
without merit. It is therefore
ORDERED that Petitioner’s petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254
is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A certificate of appealability is DENIED.
All motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby DENIED.
SIGNED this 10th day of May, 2012.

____________________________________
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2