From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Tutson v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION
Oct 30, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18cv416 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2019)

Opinion

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18cv416

10-30-2019

ANTWAIN JARMAR TUTSON v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID


ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Petitioner Antwain Jarmar Tutson, proceeding pro se, filed the above-styled petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner asserts he was denied due process of law in connection with a prison disciplinary conviction.

The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge recommending the petition be denied.

The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation.

The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections. After careful consideration, the court is of the opinion the objections are without merit. As petitioner states he is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision, the sanctions imposed as a result of his disciplinary conviction did not impose an atypical or significant hardship. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). Petitioner was therefore not entitled to due process of law in connection with his disciplinary proceeding.

ORDER

Accordingly, petitioner's objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED as the opinion of the court. A final judgment shall be entered denying this petition in accordance with the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

In addition, the court is of the opinion petitioner is not entitled to a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas relief may not proceed unless a judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for a certificate of appealability requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84; Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004). To make a substantial showing, the petitioner need not demonstrate that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues he raises are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues raised in a different manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate of appealability should be resolved in favor of the petitioner, and the severity of the penalty imposed may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir. 2000).

In this case, the petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether his petition is meritorious is subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal issues raised by petitioner have been consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are not worth of encouragement to proceed further. As a result, a certificate of appealability shall not issue in this matter.

SIGNED this the 30 day of October, 2019.

/s/_________

Thad Heartfield

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Tutson v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION
Oct 30, 2019
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18cv416 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2019)
Case details for

Tutson v. Dir., TDCJ-CID

Case Details

Full title:ANTWAIN JARMAR TUTSON v. DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BEAUMONT DIVISION

Date published: Oct 30, 2019

Citations

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:18cv416 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 30, 2019)