Green v. Thaler

Filing 4

ORDER OF DISMISSAL. Habeas relief DENIED and petition DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Any an all pending motions DENIED AS MOOT. Certificate of appealability DENIED. Case terminated on 10/23/2009.(Signed by Judge Gray H. Miller) Parties notified.(gseidl)

Download PDF
G r e e n v. Thaler Doc. 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS H O U S T O N DIVISION J OHN EARL GREEN, P e titio n e r , v. R ICK THALER, R e s p o n d e n t. C IVIL ACTION NO. H-09-3376 O RDER OF DISMISSAL J o h n Earl Green, a state inmate proceeding pro se, challenges his disciplinary c o n v ic tio n . After reviewing the pleadings under Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 C a se s in the United States District Courts, the Court concludes that this case must be d is m is s e d , as follows. Background and Claims P e titio n e r reports that he received a disciplinary conviction on October 28, 2008, and w a s punished with temporary cell restriction, loss of commissary privileges, a reduction in lin e status, and loss of 450 days good time credit. His administrative appeals of the c o n v ic tio n were denied. He challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. Analysis A c c o rd in g to well settled precedent, sanctions that merely change the conditions of a n inmate's confinement do not implicate due process concerns. Madison v. Parker, 104 F .3 d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997). Limitations imposed upon commissary or recreational Dockets.Justia.com p riv ile g e s and cell restriction are the type of sanctions that do not pose an atypical or s i g n if ic a n t hardship beyond the ordinary incidents of prison life. Id. The Fifth Circuit has a ls o determined that reductions in a prisoner's classification status and the potential impact o n good time credit earning ability, whether for purposes of parole or mandatory supervised re le a s e , are not protected by the due process clause. Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th C ir. 2000). T h e loss of good time credit itself, however, requires separate analysis. In order to c h a lle n g e a prison disciplinary conviction by way of a federal habeas petition, a petitioner m u s t be eligible for mandatory supervised release and have received a punishment sanction w h ic h included forfeiture of previously accrued good time credits. Id. In the instant case, p e titio n e r admits that he is ineligible for mandatory supervised release. (Docket Entry No. 1 , p. 5.) Accordingly, no cognizable federal habeas claim is raised in this petition. C o n c lu s io n H a b e as relief is DENIED and this petition is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Any a n d all pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. T h e Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties. S ig n e d at Houston, Texas, on October 23, 2009. Gray H. Miller U n ite d 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?