Shelton v. Davis

Filing 4

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)

United States District Court
Southern District of Texas

ENTERED
July 21, 2017

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION

GREG SHELTON,
TDCJ #2056565,

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Petitioner,
v.
LORIE DAVIS, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Correctional
Institutions Division,
Respondent.

David J. Bradley, Clerk

CIVIL ACTION NO. H-17-2139

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

The petitioner,

Greg Shelton,

also known as Gregory James

Shelton (TDCJ #2056565), has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas
Corpus By a
No.

1) ,

Person in State Custody

seeking

relief

from

a

("Petition")

(Docket Entry

prison disciplinary conviction.

After considering the pleadings and the applicable law, the court
will dismiss this action for the reasons explained below.
I.

Background

Shelton is currently incarcerated at the McConnell Unit as the
result of a murder conviction that was entered against him in 2015,
in the 23rd District Court of Brazoria County,

Texas. 1

Shelton

received a life sentence, which was affirmed on direct appeal.

1

Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2.

See

17-217J
Shelton v. State, No.

5 WL 5851899 (Tex. App. -

Houston [1st Dist.]

ef'd)

<

challenge that conviction in this

Shelton does not

aCL...Lvu.

Shelton seeks relief from a prison disciplinary conviction
that was entered against him at the McConnell Unit in late 2016. 2
In particular, Shelton challenges his conviction in disciplinary
case #20170089846 for possessing a weapon in violation of prison
rules. 3

As a result of this disciplinary conviction, Shelton spent

18 days in pre-hearing detention or solitary confinement. 4

Shelton

filed grievances to challenge the conviction, but his appeals were
unsuccessful. 5
In two related claims for relief, Shelton contends that the
challenged

disciplinary

violation

of

the

conviction was

right

to

due

entered against

process

because

him

there

in
was

insufficient evidence to support his conviction beyond a reasonable
doubt. 6

For reasons explained below,

the court concludes that

Shelton is not entitled to relief under the legal standard that
governs disciplinary proceedings in the state prison context.

2

Id. at 5.

3

Id. at 5-6.

4

Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5.

5

Id. at 5-6.

6

Id. at 6-7.
-2-

II.
An

Prison Disciplinary Proceedings

inmate's rights

in the prison disciplinary setting are

governed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.
2963, 2974-75 (1974).

See Wolff v. McDonnell, 94 S. Ct.

Prisoners charged with institutional rules

violations are entitled to rights under the Due Process Clause only
when the disciplinary action may result in a sanction that will
infringe upon a constitutionally protected liberty interest.
Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2302 (1995).

See

Liberty interests

emanate from either the Due Process Clause itself or from state
law.

See Kentucky Dep't of Corrections v.

1904,

1908

(1989)

(citation omitted).

Thompson,

109 S. Ct.

To the extent that the

disciplinary conviction may affect the petitioner's eligibility for
early release from prison, the Due Process Clause does not include
a right to conditional release before the expiration of a valid
sentence.

See Greenholtz v.

Correctional Complex,

99 S.

Inmates of the Nebraska Penal and
Ct.

2100,

2104

( 1979) .

Under these

circumstances the petitioner's claims depend on the existence of a
constitutionally protected liberty interest created by state law.
The Supreme Court has decided that only those state-created
substantive interests that "inevitably affect the duration of
prisoner's]

[a

sentence" may qualify for constitutional protection

under the Due Process Clause.

Sandin, 115 S. Ct. at 2302.

also Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995).

In Texas

only those inmates who are eligible for the form of parole known as
-3-

mandatory supervision have a
release.

constitutional expectancy of early

See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 956 (5th Cir. 2000).

As a result, a Texas prisoner cannot demonstrate a constitutional
violation

in

the

prison

disciplinary

satisfying the following criteria:

(1)

context

first

he must be eligible for

early release on mandatory supervision; and (2)
conviction at issue must have resulted in a
earned good-time credit.

without

See id. at 957-58

the disciplinary

loss of previously

(explaining that only

those Texas inmates who are eligible for early release on mandatory
supervision have a protected liberty interest in their previously
earned good-time credit) .
Shelton cannot demonstrate a constitutional violation in this
case because he admits that he did not lose any previously earned
good-time credit and that he is not otherwise eligible for mandatory
supervision. 7
Malchi,

This is fatal to Shelton's due process claims.

211 F.3d at 957-58.

Under these circumstances,

See

Shelton

cannot demonstrate a violation of the Due Process Clause, and his
pending federal habeas corpus Petition must be dismissed for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.

III.

Certificate of Appealability

Rule 11 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases now requires
a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability

7

Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 5 ~~ 16, 18. See also Tex.
Gov't Code § 508.149(a) (2) (excluding Texas prisoners convicted of
murder from eligibility for mandatory supervision) .
-4-

when entering a final order that is adverse to the petitioner.

A

certificate of appealability will not issue unless the petitioner
makes

"a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right,"

28 U.S.C.

demonstrate

"that

2253 (c) (2),

§

reasonable

would

the

Tennard v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 2565 (2004)

controlling standard this

Ct.

1595,

requires

a

1604

claims

district

wrong."

120 S.

constitutional

find

assessment

McDaniel,

the

jurists

court's

Slack v.

of

which requires a petitioner to

debatable

(2000)).

or

(quoting
Under the

petitioner to

show

"that

reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree
that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner
or

that

the

issues

presented

were

encouragement to proceed further.'"
S.

Ct.

1029,

1039

(2003)

'adequate

Miller-El v.

to

deserve

Cockrell,

123

Where denial of relief is based on

procedural grounds the petitioner must show not only that "jurists
of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a
valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right," but also that
they

"would

find

it

debatable

whether

correct in its procedural ruling."
A district court may deny a

the

district

court

was

Slack, 120 S. Ct. at 1604.
certificate of appealability,

sua sponte, without requiring further briefing or argument.

See

Alexander v.

For

Johnson,

211 F.3d 895,

898

(5th Cir.

2000).

reasons set forth above, the court concludes that jurists of reason
would not debate whether the petitioner states a valid claim or

-5-

that

the

Petition

should

be

resolved

in

a

different

manner.

Therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue.
IV.

Conclusion and Order

Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows:
1.

The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a
Person in State Custody filed by Greg Shelton
(Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED and this case will
be dismissed with prejudice.

2.

A certificate of appealability is DENIED.

The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and
Order to the parties.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 21st day of July, 2017.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-6-