Madison v. Quarterman

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM AND OPINION granting 5 MOTION/APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. The case is dismissed.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(ypippin, )

M a d i s o n v. Quarterman

Doc. 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS H O U S T O N DIVISION § § § § § § §

N IS S B E T T EDWIN MADISON, P e t i t io n e r , V S. T O M M Y THOMAS, R e sp o n d e n t.

C IV IL ACTION NO. H-08-1566

M E M O R A N D U M AND OPINION T h e petitioner, Nissbett Edwin Madison, seeks habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. From the pleadings, it appears that Madison is serving a 200-day sentence in Harris C o u n ty, Texas. Madison does not attack the validity of his underlying conviction or se n ten c e . Rather, he challenges a disciplinary hearing conducted at the Harris County Jail. (D o c k e t Entry No. 1, Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, p. 2). The threshold issue is w h e th e r this federal petition states a violation of a federally protected right. I. B a c k gro u n d M a d is o n challenges a disciplinary hearing held on October 4, 2007 1 . The hearing o f f ic e r found Madison guilty. The punishment consisted of a loss of commissary privileges f o r 30 days and cell restriction for 3 0 days. (Docket Entry No. 1, Petition for a Writ of H a b e a s Corpus, p. 4). Madison asserts that the procedures at the hearing were deficient in s e v e ra l respects. He alleges that: he was not allowed to make a statement at the hearing; the
Madison states that the hearing took place on October 4, 2008. It appears that he meant October 4, 2007. (Docket Entry No. 1, Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, p. 4).
1

Dockets.Justia.com

h e a rin g officer did not read the facts of the charged offense to him; he did not receive 24h o u r advance notice of the hearing; and counsel substitute did not tell him that he could call w itn e ss e s or present documentary evidence. Madison asserts that he could face new criminal c h a rg e s as a result of this disciplinary conviction. II. A n a ly sis A district court may examine habeas petitions before an answer or other responsive p le a d in g is filed. Kiser v. Johnson, 163 F.3d 326, 328 (5th Cir. 1999). Such a review is b a se d on "the duty of the court to screen out frivolous applications and eliminate the burden th a t would be placed on the respondent by ordering an unnecessary answer." 28 U.S.C. § 2254, Rule 4, Advisory Committee Notes. In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974), and Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 4 7 2 (1995), the Supreme Court held that the standards governing disciplinary proceedings d ep en d ed on the sanction imposed and the consequences. A prisoner punished by solitary c o n f in e m e n t and loss of good-time credits is entitled to: (1) written notice of the charges a g a in s t him at least twenty-four hours before the hearing; (2) a written statement of the fact f in d e rs as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken; and (3) th e opportunity to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense, unless th e se procedures would create a security risk in the particular case. When the punishments a re less severe and have no effect on the length of the sentence, an inmate is entitled to notice a n d an opportunity to present a statement in an informal nonadversary evidentiary review.

2

H e w itt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983); Walker v. Navarro County Jail, 4 F.3d 410, 412 (5th C ir. 1993); Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997). M a d is o n 's due process claim based on the loss of privileges is barred under the S u p r e m e Court's decision in Sandin. In Sandin, a prisoner was placed in disciplinary s e g re g a tio n for thirty days, but received no punishment that inevitably affected the duration o f his sentence. The Court held that such sanctions did not require the procedural protections s e t out in Wolff. In this case, the punishments that Madison received are not the types of " a typ ic a l and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison lif e ." Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484, 486 n.9. The punishment changed the conditions of M a d is o n 's confinement, but did not give rise to a due process claim. Madison, 104 F.3d at 7 6 7 -6 8 . The procedures used at the hearing do not give rise to a due process claim. M a d is o n 's federal petition does not present grounds warranting habeas relief and c a n n o t proceed. III. C o n c lu s io n M a d iso n 's challenges to his disciplinary conviction lack merit. This case is

D IS M IS S E D . Madison's motion to proceed as a pauper, (Docket Entry No. 5), is granted. A n y remaining pending motions are DENIED as moot. The showing necessary for a Certificate of Appealability is a substantial showing of th e denial of a constitutional right. Hernandez v. Johnson, 213 F.3d 243, 248 (5th Cir. 2 0 0 0 )(c itin g Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000)). An applicant makes a

3

su b stan tial showing when he demonstrates that his application involves issues that are d e b a ta b le among jurists of reason, that another court could resolve the issues differently, or th a t the issues are suitable enough to deserve encouragement to proceed further. See Finley v . Johnson, 243 F.3d 2150, 218 (5th Cir. 2001). Where a district court has rejected a prisoner's constitutional claims on the merits, the a p p lic a n t must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment o f the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Slack, 529 U.S. 484. This court will not is s u e a COA because Madison has not made the necessary showing. S I G N E D on July 29, 2008, at Houston, Texas.

______________________________________ L e e H. Rosenthal United States District Judge

4