Opinion
Civil Action No. 4:03-CV-0937-Y
December 31, 2003
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER
This cause of action was referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), as implemented by an order of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are as follows:
I. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
A. NATURE OF THE CASE
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus by a federal prisoner pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241.
B. PARTIES
Petitioner Tommy Gabriel, Reg. No. 08531-078, is a federal prisoner who is currently incarcerated in the Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth, Texas.
The Respondent is L. E. Fleming, Warden of the Federal Medical Center, Fort Worth, Texas.
C. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Gabriel was convicted of a drug related offense in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Sherman Division, and sentenced to 144 months' incarceration. (Federal Pet. at 2.) By way of the instant petition, he disputes the Bureau of Prisons's classification of him as a "Low Security Level inmate assigned In custody" and seeks reclassification "as an out Community Custody" inmate. (Federal Petition at 2-4 Ex. A.) According to Gabriel, the Bureau of Prisons violated his "due process rights and his liberty interest" by considering a prior 1990 state conviction for failure to report as an "escape" in determining his "custody classification scoring." (Id.) Gabriel apparently pursued his administrative remedies regarding his complaint through the prison appeals process. (Id.) On December 5, 2002, however, his appeal was denied. The Administrator of National Inmate Appeals stated in his written response:
The issue raised is within the authority of the Warden and the Regional Director as set forth in Program Statement 5100.07, Security Designation and Custody Classification Manual. The intent of P.S. 5100.07 is to allow staff to use professional judgement within specific guidelines. We find that you are correctly classified as a Low Security Level inmate assigned In custody. We do not find any errors on your Custody Classification Form, and find it has been scored correctly and in compliance with P.S. 5100.07, Chapter 8, Page 6. (Id.)
Thereafter, Gabriel filed the instant habeas corpus petition in this court. The government has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) with attached exhibit, to which Gabriel has not timely replied.
D. DISCUSSION
In its motion to dismiss, the government contends this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Gabriel's claim because Gabriel fails to state a claim upon which federal habeas relief may be granted. (Resp't Mot. to Dismiss at 2-5.) It is well settled in this circuit that an inmate has no constitutional claim to any particular security classification, once incarcerated. See Wilkerson v. Stalder, 329 F.3d 431, 435-36 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 124 S.Ct. 432 (2003); Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir. 1999); Whitley v. Hunt, 158 F.3d 882, 889 (5th Cir. 1998). The classification of prisoners is a matter within the discretion of prison officials. McCord v. Maggio, 910 F.2d 1248, 1250 (5th Cir. 1990). Thus, absent an abuse of discretion, which has not been demonstrated by Gabriel, a federal court will not interfere with administrative determinations regarding custodial classification of an inmate. Whitley, 158 F.3d at 889. The government correctly argues that no factual or legal basis for a claim of constitutional dimension is presented.
II. RECOMMENDATION
Because Gabriel has failed to state a claim upon which habeas relief can be granted, it is recommended that the government's motion to dismiss be GRANTED to the extent that this petition for writ of habeas corpus be DENIED.
III. NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT TO PROPOSED FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION AND CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE TO OBJECT
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), each party to this action has the right to serve and file specific written objections in the United States District Court to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation within ten (10) days after the party has been served with a copy of this document. The court is extending the deadline within which to file specific written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation until January 21, 2004. The United States District Judge need only make a de novo determination of those portions of the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which specific objection is timely made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(B)(1). Failure to file by the date stated above a specific written objection to a proposed factual finding or legal conclusion will bar a party, except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice, from attacking on appeal any such proposed factual finding or legal conclusion accepted by the United States District Judge. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc op. on reh'g); Carter v. Collins, 918 F.2d 1198, 1203 (5th Cir. 1990).
IV. ORDER
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636, it is ORDERED that each party is granted until January 21, 2004, to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation. It is further ORDERED that if objections are filed and the opposing party chooses to file a response, a response shall be filed within seven (7) days of the filing date of the objections.
It is further ORDERED that the above-styled and numbered action, previously referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings, conclusions, and recommendation, be and hereby is returned to the docket of the United States District Judge.