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)

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