Peek v. Director, TDCJ-CID
Filing
15
OPINION AND ORDER: Petitioner has failed to show that he has been denied a constitutionally protected right warranting federal habeas relief. For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is also DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 9/4/2020) (pef)
Case 4:20-cv-00573-P Document 15 Filed 09/04/20
Page 1 of 4 PageID 80
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
FORT WORTH DIVISION
JASON PEEK,
Petitioner,
v.
BOBBY LUMPKIN, Director,
TDCJ-CID,1
Respondent.
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
Civil Action No. 4:20-CV-573-P
OPINION AND ORDER
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 filed by
Petitioner, Jason Peek, a state prisoner incarcerated in the Correctional Institutions Division
of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ-CID), against Bobby Lumpkin, director
of that division, Respondent. After having considered the pleadings, state court records, and
relief sought by Petitioner, the court has concluded that the petition should be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
Petitioner is serving two 25-year sentences for felony convictions in Parker and Wise
Counties. TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, TDCJ’s Offender Information Details,
http://www.offender.tdcj.gov/OffenderSearch/offenderDetail (last visited September 4,
2020). By this habeas petition, Petitioner challenges a 2020 disciplinary proceeding
conducted at the Havins pre-release facility and the resultant temporary loss of telephone,
1
Bobby Lumpkin has replaced Lorie Davis as director of the Correctional Institutions
Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice and is automatically substituted as the
party respondent. FED. R. CIV. P. 25(d).
Case 4:20-cv-00573-P Document 15 Filed 09/04/20
Page 2 of 4 PageID 81
visitation, recreation and commissary privileges and a reduction in class status from S-2 to
S-4. Disciplinary Hr’g R. 16-18, ECF No. 12-2. Petitioner was charged in Disciplinary Case
No. 20200106942 with establishing an inappropriate relationship with a staff member, a level
2, code 30.2 violation. Id. at 4. After receiving notice of the charges, Petitioner and his
“counsel substitute” attended a disciplinary hearing on January 17, 2020, during which he
pleaded guilty to the offense. Id. at 16-18. After considering the evidence admitted during
the hearing, the disciplinary hearing officer found Petitioner guilty of the violation. Id. at 18.
Petitioner filed Step 1 and Step 2 grievances contesting the guilty finding, to no avail.
Disciplinary Grievance R. 3-6, ECF No. 12-1. This federal petition for writ of habeas corpus
followed.
II. ISSUES
In four grounds, petitioner raises the following claims:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
there was insufficient and contradictive evidence that does not support
the charge;
in violation of the Fifth Amendment, the disciplinary hearing officer
compelled him to enter a guilty plea;
he received ineffective assistance of counsel substitute; and
in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, his parole was still revoked.
Pet. 6-7. ECF No. 1.
III. RULE 5 STATEMENT
Respondent believes exhaustion as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(b) was not
accomplished, however the record reflects that Petitioner filed Step 1 and 2 grievances,
which were both considered and rejected by prison officials. Disciplinary Grievance R. 3-6,
2
Case 4:20-cv-00573-P Document 15 Filed 09/04/20
Page 3 of 4 PageID 82
ECF No. 12-1. Thus, the Court finds that Petitioner sufficiently exhausted his administrative
remedies for purposes of § 2254(b). Respondent does not otherwise believe that the petition
is untimely or subject to the successive-petition bar. Resp’t Answer 4-8, ECF No. 11.
IV. DISCUSSION
A state prisoner seeking federal habeas review pursuant to § 2254 must assert a
violation of a federal constitutional right to be entitled to such relief. See Lowery v. Collins,
988 F.2d 1364, 1367 (5th Cir. 1993). In Texas, only disciplinary sanctions that result in the
loss of good time credits for inmates who are eligible for release on mandatory supervision
implicate protected constitutional rights. Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 959 (5th Cir.2000).
Petitioner did not lose any good time credits as a result of the disciplinary proceeding.
Accordingly, he fails to state a claim for federal habeas-corpus relief under grounds one and
two.
Nor does ineffective assistance of counsel in a prison disciplinary proceeding present
a valid claim for federal habeas-corpus relief, because there is no constitutional right to
representation in a prison disciplinary proceeding. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570
(1974); Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 315 (1976). If there is no constitutional right to
counsel at a disciplinary hearing, a prisoner cannot be deprived of the effective assistance of
counsel, even where counsel or “counsel substitute” is appointed. Wainwright v. Torna, 455
U.S. 586, 587-588 (1982). Petitioner is not entitled to relief under ground three.
Finally, it is well settled that the Texas parole statutes do not confer a right to be
3
Case 4:20-cv-00573-P Document 15 Filed 09/04/20
Page 4 of 4 PageID 83
released on parole. Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1995); Madison v. Parker, 104
F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997). Therefore, to whatever extent the challenged disciplinary
violation may have affected Petitioner’s eligibility for or release on parole, he fails to state
a claim that is cognizable on federal habeas-corpus review. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472,
483-484 (1995); Madison, 104 F.3d at 767. Petitioner is not entitled to relief under ground
four.
V. CONCLUSION
Petitioner has failed to show that he has been denied a constitutionally protected right
warranting federal habeas relief.
For the reasons discussed herein, Petitioner’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. A certificate of appealability is also DENIED.
SO ORDERED on this 4th day of September, 2020.
Mark T. Pittman
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
4
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?