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-
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?