Gerland v. Davis, No. 4:2018cv04698 - Document 5 (S.D. Tex. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 2 APPLICATION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. (Signed by Judge Sim Lake) Parties notified. (aboyd, 4)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Gerland v. Davis Doc. 5 United States District Court Southern District of Texas ENTERED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION ERIC A. GERLAND, TDCJ #01508344, § § § § § § § § § § § § § Petitioner, v. LORIE DAVIS, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent. January 02, 2019 David J. Bradley, Clerk CIVIL ACTION NO. H-18-4698 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER Texas inmate Eric A. Gerland (TDCJ #01508344) 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 Gerland is currently serving a 45-year prison sentence in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice - Correctional Institutions Division ("TDCJ") as the result of a murder conviction that was Dockets.Justia.com entered against him in Cameron County, Texas. 1 That conviction, a first-degree felony in violation of Texas Penal Code§ 19.02(b), was affirmed on direct appeal in an unpublished decision. See Gerland v. State, No. 13-08-00321-CR, 2009 WL 4432674 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi-Edinburgh Dec. 3, 2009, pet. ref'd). Gerland 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 Pack Unit in Navasota, where he is currently confined. 2 September 22, possession 2018, Gerland indicates that he was convicted on in disciplinary case number 20190015896, contraband. 3 of As a result of this for disciplinary conviction, Gerland lost commissary and recreation privileges for 30 days. 4 Gerland argues that he was denied due process at his disciplinary hearing because there was insufficient evidence that the items found in his possession medication) (boot laces and some expired were actually contraband. 5 Gerland contends further that his conviction should be overturned because prison officials 1 Petition, Docket Entry No. 1, p. 2. 2 Id. at 1, 5. 3 Id. at 5. 4 Id. 5 Id. at 6. -2- failed to follow their own rules by conducting an adequate investigation. 6 II. Prison Disciplinary Proceedings An inmate's 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 (1995). cannot demonstrate disciplinary criteria: context a Due Process without first 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 earned good-time credit. 58 (5th Cir. 2000). (2) the disciplinary loss of previously See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957- Gerland meets neither criteria. As a state inmate convicted of murder, Gerland is not eligible for early release on mandatory supervision as a matter of law. Tex. Gov't Code § 508.149(a) (2). See Likewise, Gerland concedes that he did not lose any previously earned good-time credit. 7 To the extent that Gerland lost privileges, this type of sanction does not 6 Id. at 7. 7 Id. at 5, ~ 18. -3- pose an "atypical" or "significant" hardship that constitutionally Parker, 104 protected F.3d 765, liberty 768 (5th interest. Cir. implicates a See 1997) Madison (observing v. 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"). Gerland cannot establish constitutional under these constitutional a circumstances, his Because violation of 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 jurists would Tennard v. Dretke, 124 S. Ct. 2562, 2565 (2004) S. Ct. 1595, 1604 claims the wrong." 120 constitutional find assessment McDaniel, the which requires a petitioner to court's Slack v. of 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 -4- the violation of a constitutional right. Therefore, a certificate of appealability will not issue. 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 Eric A. Gerland (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~ day of TAN, 2019. SIM LAKE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE -5-
]]>
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.
