Clark v. Davis, No. 4:2018cv02213 - Document 5 (S.D. Tex. 2018)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, granting 2 APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Clark v. Davis Doc. 5 United States District Court Southern District of Texas IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION MICHAEL DWAYNE CLARK, TDCJ #01983265, ENTERED July 09, 2018 David J. Bradley, Clerk § § § § § Petitioner, v. § CIVIL ACTION NO. H-18-2213 § § § § § § § LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Texas inmate Michael Dwayne Clark (TDCJ #01983265) has filed a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody ("Petition") (Docket Entry No. disciplinary conviction. 1), After seeking relief from a prison reviewing the pleadings in accordance with Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts, the court will dismiss this case for the reasons explained below. I. Background Clark is currently serving a 15-year prison sentence in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ") as the result of a conviction that was entered Dockets.Justia.com against him in McClennan County, Texas. 1 specify the offense, Although Clark does not court records reflect that he received that sentence after a jury found him guilty of possessing a controlled substance, namely heroin. 2015 WL 5949338 (Tex. See Clark v. State, No. 10-15-00022-CR, App. Waco Oct. 8, 2015, pet. ref'd). Prison records further reflect that Clark has at least two other state court convictions for possession of a controlled substance, one of which included an affirmative finding that a deadly weapon was used during the offense. 2 Clark now seeks relief in the form of a federal writ of habeas corpus to challenge a prison disciplinary conviction that was entered against him at the Ellis Unit in Huntsville, where he is currently confined. 3 Clark challenges a conviction entered against him on March 22, 2018, in disciplinary case number 20180190958, for possession conviction, of marijuana. 4 Clark lost privileges for 45 days. 1 As a commissary, 5 result of this recreation, disciplinary and visitation Clark's classification status was also Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2. 2 Those convictions were entered against Clark on December 11, 2008, in McLennan County Cause Nos. 2008-1697-C2 and 2008-1076-C2. See TDCJ Offender Information website, available at https://offender.tdcj.texas.gov (last visited July 9, 2019). 3 Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, pp. 1, 5. 4 Id. at 5. 5 Id. -2- reduced credit. and he lost 300 days of previously earned good-time 6 Clark argues that he was denied due process at his disciplinary hearing because officers did not test the drugs, which he claims were actually seasoning. 7 food Clark contends, therefore, that his conviction should be overturned because prison officials failed to follow their own rules by obtaining laboratory report establishing the nature of the substance. II. An inmate's a 8 Prison Disciplinary Proceedings 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 cannot demonstrate disciplinary criteria: context a Due Process without first (1995). See A Texas prisoner violation in satisfying the the prison following (1) he must be eligible for early release on the form of parole known as mandatory supervision; and conviction at issue must have resulted in a 6 Id. 7 Id. at 7. 8 Id. at 8. -3- (2) the disciplinary loss of previously earned good-time credit. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957- 58 (5th Cir. 2000). Although Clark lost previously earned good-time credit, admits in his supervision. Petition that 9 Under Texas he is not eligible law, an inmate is not for he mandatory eligible for mandatory supervision if he is serving a sentence for or has been previously convicted of an offense in which the judgment contains an affirmative finding that a deadly weapon was used. Gov't Code§ 508.149(a) (1). includes such a finding, See Tex. Because one of his prior convictions Clark is not eligible for mandatory supervision and he cannot establish that the loss of good-time credit implicated a constitutionally protected liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause. See Malchi, 211 F.3d at 958. To the extent that Clark lost privileges, this type of sanction does not pose an "atypical" or "significant" hardship that implicates a Madison v. constitutionally protected liberty interest. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997) See (observing that limitations imposed on commissary privileges and temporary cell restrictions are "merely changes in the conditions of [an inmate's] confinement and do not implicate due process concerns"). The Fifth Circuit has also decided that reductions in a prisoner's classification status and the potential impact on good-time credit 9 Id. at 5 <JI 16. -4- earning ability are not protected by the Due Process Clause. See Malchi, 211 F.3d at 958; Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). Because Clark cannot establish a constitutional violation of constitutional under these circumstances, his Petition will 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 requires a district court to issue or deny a certificate of appealability 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 right," 28 U.S.C. demonstrate that § 2253(c) (2), "reasonable would Tennard v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 2565 (2004) S. Ct. 1595, 1604 claims the wrong." 120 constitutional find assessment McDaniel, the jurists petitioner to court's Slack v. of which requires a constitutional (2000)). district debatable or (quoting The court concludes that jurists of reason would not debate the assessment of the petitioner's claims or whether the petitioner has demonstrated the violation of a constitutional right. of appealability will not issue. -5- Therefore, a certificate IV. Conclusion and Order Based on the foregoing, the court ORDERS as follows: 1. The petitioner's Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (Docket Entry No. 2) is GRANTED. 2. The Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus By a Person in State Custody filed by Michael Dwayne Clark (Docket Entry No. 1) is DENIED, and this action will be dismissed with prejudice. 3. A certificate of appealability is DENIED. The Clerk shall provide a copy of this Memorandum Opinion and Order to the petitioner. SIGNED at Houston, Texas, on this the 9th day of July, 2018. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -6-
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
