Opinion
2:05-CV-0302.
January 25, 2006
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
On November 23, 2005, petitioner RICHARD JAMES JOHNSON filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody challenging the result of a disciplinary proceeding and the resultant loss of good-time credits. However, in his application petitioner failed to properly answer questions 1 through 4 of the habeas form petition which relate to his underlying conviction. On December 2, 2005, this Court issued a "Briefing Order" giving petitioner twenty (20) days from the date of the Order to provide the Court with information responsive to a Questionnaire about his underlying conviction information. Petitioner's response should have been filed not later than December 22, 2005.
As of this date, petitioner has not complied with the Court's December 2, 2005 Order by filing a response. Moreover, petitioner has not communicated with the Court any reason why he has been unable to comply with the Court's Order. Because of petitioner's failure to comply with a direct order from the Court, it is the opinion of the undersigned that petitioner has neglected his case to such an extent that it warrants dismissal.
In addition, to the extent, if any, that petitioner is challenging the loss of good time, petitioner's claim does not present a proper ground for habeas relief. Texas law provides that good time credits apply only to eligibility for release on parole or mandatory supervision and do not affect the length of an inmate's sentence. Tex. Gov't Code Ann. § 498.003 (Vernon Supp. 1999); Ex parte Montgomery, 894 S.W.2d 324 (Tex.Crim.App. 1995). On January 25, 2006, inquiry to a custodian of records at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, confirmed that petitioner is not eligible for mandatory supervised release. Consequently, any good time credits he has earned apply only toward his eligibility for parole. Prisoners in Texas possess no constitutionally protected right to release on parole. See Greenholtz v. Inmates of Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, 422 U.S. 1,7 (1979); Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768-69 (5th Cir. 1997); Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.2d 74, 75 (5th Cir. 1995); Gilbertson v. Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 993 F.2d 74, 75 (5th Cir. 1993). Because petitioner possesses no constitutionally protected right to release on parole, and since he is ineligible for release on mandatory supervision, no constitutional violation has occurred and his claim does not provide a basis for federal habeas corpus relief. See Madison, supra.
"As a general rule, only sanctions which result in loss of good conduct time credits for inmates who are eligible for release on mandatory supervision or which otherwise directly and adversely affect release on mandatory supervision will impose upon a liberty interest." Spicer v. Collins, 9 F.Supp.2d 673, 685 (E.D. Tex. 1998) ( citing Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31-33 (5th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1059 (1996).
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the foregoing, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner RICHARD JAMES JOHNSON is without merit and should be, in all things, DISMISSED.INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE
The United States District Clerk is directed to send a file-marked copy of this Report and Recommendation to petitioner by the most efficient means available.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.