Opinion
7:02-CV-162-R
July 29, 2003
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
This is a petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 by an inmate confined in the James V. Allred Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice ("TDCJ"). Petitioner is serving two concurrent ten-year sentences for delivery of a controlled substance and aggravated assault. Petition ¶¶ 1-4. While incarcerated in the Price Daniel Unit, he was charged with a disciplinary infraction and, on June 29, 2001, he was found guilty. As punishment, Petitioner was placed on 30 days cell restriction and he lost 30 days of good time credits. Petition ¶ 18. He also claims to have suffered a reduction in his custodial classification. Id. Rice challenged the results of the disciplinary proceeding through the prison grievance process without success. Id. ¶ 19. He then filed this action in federal court. Rice claims that he was denied due process during the disciplinary proceeding and that the action was brought against him for purposes of retaliation. Id. ¶ 20.A.
The due process rights of prisoners are generally limited to freedom of restraint which "imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life." Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2300 (1995). Restrictions which alter the conditions of confinement do not implicate due process. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000) (commissary and cell restrictions); Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997) (same). A prisoner has a protected liberty interest in the loss of accrued good time only if he is eligible for release to mandatory supervision. Malchi, 211 F.3d at 957-58; see also Creel v. Keene, 928 F.2d 707, 712 (5th Cir.) (finding that Texas prisoners have no protected liberty interest in early release on parole), cert. denied, 501 U.S. 1210, 111 S.Ct. 2809 (1991).
When a prisoner has a protected liberty interest in the loss of accrued good time credits, the revocation of such credits must comply with minimal procedural due process. Henson v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th Cir. 2000); see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2975 (1974) (holding that prisoners are entitled to "those minimum procedures appropriate under the circumstances and required by the Due Process Clause to insure that the state-created right is not arbitrarily abrogated"). These minimal requirements are: (1) written notice of the alleged disciplinary violation at least 24 hours prior to a hearing; (2) the ability to call witnesses and present documentary evidence when not unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals; and (3) a written statement of the hearing officer as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for any disciplinary action taken. Wolff 418 U.S. at 564-66, 94 S.Ct. at 2979. Federal habeas review of the sufficiency of the evidence is extremely limited. Due process requires only "some evidence to support the findings made in the disciplinary hearing." Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 2775 (1985); see Smith v. Rabalais, 659 F.2d 539, 545 (5th Cir. 1981) (requiring the court to determine whether "any evidence at all" supports disciplinary action taken by prison officials), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 992, 102 S.Ct. 1619 (1982).
The Court initially observes that Petitioner's cell restriction and custodial classification level do not implicate due process concerns. See Malchi, 211 F.3d at 958; Madison, 104 F.3d at 768. However, Petitioner also lost 30 days of good time credit. Assuming the truth of his claim that he is eligible for release to mandatory supervision, Rice has a constitutionally protected liberty interest sufficient to justify the consideration of his claims on the merits. Malchi, 211 E.3d at 958-59.
Review of Rice's petition and his answers to the Court's questions reflects that he has failed to state a cognizable ground for habeas relief He does not claim to have been denied written notice of the alleged disciplinary violation prior to the hearing and he makes no claim that he was denied the right to present evidence or that he was denied a written statement from the hearing officer as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 564-66, 94 S.Ct. at 2979. Furthermore, Rice does not claim that the evidence against him was insufficient to support the finding of guilt. His conclusory allegations of constitutional violations fail to state a ground upon which habeas relief may be granted. See Ross v. Estelle, 694 F.2d 1008, 1012 (5th Cir. 1983) (emphasizing that mere conclusory allegations do not raise constitutional issues in habeas proceedings).
Absent a claim that he has been deprived of some right secured to him by the United States Constitution or laws, Rice is not entitled to habeas corpus relief. Thomas v. Torres, 717 P.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1010, 104 S.Ct. 1008 (1984). In the case at bar, Rice has failed to articulate any facts that could show that the disciplinary action taken against him was constitutionally infirm.
To the extent that Rice presents issues cognizable in a civil rights action, he is free to file such claims in a new civil action. The Court notes that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), Rice is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis in a civil rights action. Therefore, any such action must be accompanied by the $150.00 filing fee at the time of filing unless Rice can demonstrate that he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
See Rice v. Johnson, 4:00-CV-281 (E.D. Tex.) (dismissed for failure to state a claim); Rice v. Johnson, 01-41167 (5th Cir.) (dismissed as frivolous); Rice v. Paccar, 4:02-CV-042 (E.D. Tex.) (dismissed as frivolous and for failure to state a claim); Rice v. U.S. Gov't, 4:02-CV-081 (E.D. Tex.) (dismissed as frivolous).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the petition for writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Rice's civil rights claims are dismissed without prejudice.
A copy of this order shall be transmitted to Petitioner.