Jackson v. Director TDCJ
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Judge Michael H. Schneider on 7/21/15. (ljw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JAMES ARTIS JACKSON
CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:14-CV-133
MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND
ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Petitioner, James Artis Jackson, an inmate confined at the Eastham Unit of the Texas
Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis, filed this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
The Court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate
Judge, at Lufkin, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this Court. The
Magistrate Judge recommends the petition be denied.
The Court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings. Petitioner filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. This requires a
de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV.
After careful consideration, the Court finds the objections lacking in merit. A reduction in
good time-earning classification is not a sanction which imposes an “atypical and significant
hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995); Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir.
1997). As outlined by the Magistrate Judge, petitioner is subject to more restrictive conditions of
confinement and will earn fewer good conduct time credits in the future as a result of the contested
disciplinary conviction. Petitioner, however, did not lose any good conduct time that he already
earned and has no protected property or liberty interest in his custody classification. Moody v. Baker,
857 F.2d 256, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1988). Petitioner was not entitled to due process before receiving
To the extent petitioner still complains about the hold on his inmate trust account,
petitioner is free to file a separate civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as this claim
challenges a condition of his confinement. A favorable determination as to this claim would not
automatically entitle petitioner to accelerated release and is proper only in a § 1983 complaint.
Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are overruled. The findings of fact and conclusions of
law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED. A
final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate Judge’s
Furthermore, the Court is of the opinion petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of
appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying post-conviction collateral relief may not proceed
unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for a
certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a
federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke,
362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner need not establish
that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are subject to debate
among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the
questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84.
Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability should be resolved in favor of the
petitioner, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See
Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000).
In this case, petitioner has not shown that any of the issues would be subject to debate among jurists
of reason. The questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further.
Therefore, the petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of certificate
of appealability. Accordingly, a certificate of appealability will not be issued.
SIGNED this 21st day of July, 2015.
MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?