Antonio Lacy v. Rick Thaler, Director

Fifth Circuit

Antonio Lacy v. Rick Thaler, Director

497 F. App'x 411

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedNovember 16, 2012

Docket12-40792

StatusUnpublished

This text of 497 F. App'x 411 (Antonio Lacy v. Rick Thaler, Director) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Antonio Lacy v. Rick Thaler, Director, 497 F. App'x 411 (5th Cir. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Antonio M. Lacy, Texas prisoner # 594575, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his prison disciplinary conviction. He contends that his liberty and property interests were implicated by the denial of procedural due process in connection with his disciplinary hearing. His punishment included a reprimand, 45 days of commissary and cell restriction, a reduction in time-earning status, and the subsequent forfeiture of $200 from his inmate trust fund account.

With regard to his liberty interest claims, Lacy has not shown “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). With regard to Lacy’s claim that the forfeiture of $200 infringed his property interests, the district court should have entertained the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Eubanks v. McCotter, 802 F.2d 790, 793 (5th Cir.1986); see also Serio v. Members of La. St. Bd. of Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112, 1119 (5th Cir.1987). The court’s determination that the proper defendant could not be determined is incorrect as Lacy’s pleadings indicate Warden Jackson and Sgt. D. Mayer were involved in the forfeiture. Additionally, the Parratt/Hudson doctrine does not bar *412 Lacy’s due process claim because the prison officials’ actions in this case were pursuant to routine disciplinary procedure. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 115, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990).

We therefore DENY the motion for a COA in part, GRANT the motion for a COA in part, VACATE the district court’s judgment, and REMAND for the district court to consider only Lacy’s claim regarding the infringement of his property interest without procedural due process. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir.1998).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Antonio M. Lacy, Texas prisoner # 594575, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging his prison disciplinary conviction. He contends that his liberty and property interests were implicated by the denial of procedural due process in connection with his disciplinary hearing. His punishment included a reprimand, 45 days of commissary and cell restriction, a reduction in time-earning status, and the subsequent forfeiture of $200 from his inmate trust fund account.

With regard to his liberty interest claims, Lacy has not shown “that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.” Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). With regard to Lacy’s claim that the forfeiture of $200 infringed his property interests, the district court should have entertained the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Eubanks v. McCotter, 802 F.2d 790, 793 (5th Cir.1986); see also Serio v. Members of La. St. Bd. of Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112, 1119 (5th Cir.1987). The court’s determination that the proper defendant could not be determined is incorrect as Lacy’s pleadings indicate Warden Jackson and Sgt. D. Mayer were involved in the forfeiture. Additionally, the Parratt/Hudson doctrine does not bar *412 Lacy’s due process claim because the prison officials’ actions in this case were pursuant to routine disciplinary procedure. See Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 115, 110 S.Ct. 975, 108 L.Ed.2d 100 (1990).

We therefore DENY the motion for a COA in part, GRANT the motion for a COA in part, VACATE the district court’s judgment, and REMAND for the district court to consider only Lacy’s claim regarding the infringement of his property interest without procedural due process. See Whitehead v. Johnson, 157 F.3d 384, 388 (5th Cir.1998).

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

497 F. App'x 411, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/antonio-lacy-v-rick-thaler-director-ca5-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack