Harris v. Director TDCJ-CID

Filing 19

ORDER OF DISMISSAL ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 8 Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge. ORDERED that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and the case is DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 6/9/2015. (gsg)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION WILLIE OTIS HARRIS, JR., #614647 § VS. § DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:15cv385 ORDER OF DISMISSAL Petitioner Willie Otis Harris, 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 K. Nicole Mitchell, who issued a Report and Recommendation concluding that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be denied. Petitioner has filed objections. Petitioner complains in his objections that none of the issues raised by him were addressed in the Report and Recommendation. “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). “[H]abeas claims involve someone’s liberty.” Davis v. Fechtel, 150 F.3d 486, 490 (5th Cir. 1998). In prison disciplinary cases, a protected liberty interest is at stake if and only if a petitioner loses good time and is eligible for release on mandatory supervision. See Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 769 (5th Cir. 1997); Sanders v. Smith, 111 F. App’x 752, 752 n.1 (5th Cir. 2004). Petitioner acknowledges that he is ineligible for release on mandatory supervision; thus, the punishment he received in the disciplinary case did not implicate a protected liberty interest. Federal habeas corpus relief is unavailable due to the absence of a protected liberty interest. The specific issues raised by Petitioner were not addressed since he may not obtain federal habeas corpus relief with respect to the disciplinary case. 1 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 #8) 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 9th day of June, 2015. ____________________________________ MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

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?