x 'a. wm RESTRICT:QN __ c. MEHTAL HEALTH REPRESENTATIuE REQuIREn
B. HEDICAL REPRESENTATIVE'REQUIEED
VI= TRAESPGRTHTIDN`RESTRIETIDNS (CHECK GHEP K §. ND RESTRICTIGN. » __ C. UHEELCH§IR UAN
B. EHS HHBULANCE 1 v _ "“§*1?311~»1111¢§1§ PLP. 111:1:'1511*"m ' _/
(N\A.n /\ f §}ha/§ 1 _ 36
STANLEY HD 12/22/2008 __ PRINTED NAHE AND TITLE UF REVIEUER DQTE
F\
, , f \ )
,..' \...... ATUZBQB /TOSE/HSlé TEXAS DEPARTMENT DF ERIMINAL JUSTICE ‘ 06:21:41 _ HEALTH SUHMARY FUR CLHSSIFIDATION 12/15/2008. NAME: FINLEY,JAICUURRIE DEUAYNE DDB: 07/31/1979 P U L H E 5 TDCJ#: 01354674 zSID#: 05601473 UGT: 205 LBS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ UNIT: TD HUUSING: ' HGT: 5‘11" lllllllliBlll JUB= ' IA|A|AIA| IA| _ _ AEA%. HLHM¢ I. FAGILITY ABSIGNNEN? (CHECK QNE) X A. NO RESTRICTIUN M~ 31 BARRIER*FREE FACILITY “m C. SINGLE LEVEL FACILITY D. SUITABLE FOR TRUSTEE CAHP? X YES_*NU- .II. HOUSING RSSIBNMENT h. BASIC HOUSING (CHECK UNE) B. BUNK ASSIBNHENT`(CHECK UNE) X 1. ND RESTRICTION . NO REBTRICTION ..... 2. SINBLE CELL DNLY (§§:§§i;? LDUER ONL¥ »* 3. SPECIAL HOUSING (HDUSING UITH ` LIKE MEDICAL CONDITIBN kw 4, CELL BLDCK ON[Y C, RDU ASSIGNHENT (CHECK ONE) D. UHEELCHAIR USE (EHECK DNE) /’“ . ND REBTRICTION ”* 1. ND RESTRIETIUN '00 ". GRUUND FLOOR‘UNLY _____ Z. PHDP DRDERED nw 3. UTILITY USE `III.UDRK ASSIGNHENT/REBTRICTIONS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY) vw 1. NEDICALLY UNASSIBNED ..... ISiNU-FOOD SERVICE _ - 2. FSYEHIATRICALLY UNASSIBNED u,,lé.ND REPETITIVE USE UF HANDS` "w 3. SEDENTARY UDRK UNLY *m'l?.NU UALK UET/UNEVEN SURFQCES ~, 4. FUUR HDUR UDRK RESTRIETIDN ' DO NDT ABSIGN TU HEDIEAL -.._. !). EXCU_SE FRDM SCHOUL ”NU L}DRK IN DIRECT SUNLIBHT md 7. LIHITED STANDING vw BO.HO TEMPERATURE EXTREHES m_ 8, NO UALKING } “mw YMRDS Nw EI.HU HUMIDITY EXTREHES` ?. NU_LIFTINB > “M~ LBS~ *w BZ.NO EXPUSURE TO ENUIRDNMENT PDLLUTANTB
M_ 10.N0 BENDING éT UAIST . ".ND UORK UITH EHEHIEALS UR IRRITANTS
. .NO REPETITI'JE SQUATTINE F’.-NO UDRK REQUIRING SAFETY .`BUOTS
v m{ND'CLINBING ,¢.ND UORK AROUND MQCHINE UITH NDUING PHRT 13.LINITED SITTING ,M,Ré.NO UURK EXPDBURE TU LOUD NOISEB
mw 14.ND REACHING UUER SHOULDER
IV. DIBCIPLINARY PRUCESS (CHECK DNE)
X A. NU RESTRICTIONS - ' _ " nw B. EONSULT REP DF NENTAL HEALTH DEPT BEFDRE TAKINB DISCIPLINSRY ACTIUN M“ 0. CDNSULT REP OF MEDIEAL DEPARTMENT BEFURE TAKING DISEIPLINARY ACTION
V= INDIVIDUALIZED TREGTHENT PLAN (CHECK RLL TTHQT APFLY) ~ . X A. ND'REBTRICTION w_ C. MENTAL HEALTH REPRESENTATIUE REQUIRED
wm B. HEDICAL REPRESENTATIVE EEQUIEED
UI. TRANSFGRTATIUN-RESTRIETIDNS (CHECK ONE) X A. ND RESTRICTION' w* C. UHEELCHAIR VAN
.,,. .B. .EHS A':~;.BULQNCE %/ REYES .>~zn _ 10./23/2006'_ %//"f/\
PRINTED mm mm T'ITLE cF RE\)IENER :nM-E %;G/MFQR€ nF RE&,'IEYR_ l n '/r_ y 37 ' . '/7'_'~__, / /r
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT y FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AMARILLO DIVISION
JAICOURRIE DeWAYNE FINLEY, Petitioner,
v. l 2110-CV~0166
RICK THALER, Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, . Correctional Institutions Division,
QOGQCNOOHWJDOQWJCO>OOOOO>OO'>OOO
Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WR'IT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner has filed with this Couit a form Petition for a Wri_t of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State '_Custody indicating he is challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding that took place at the Clements Unit in Potter County, Texas. Petitioner contends he lost 150 days of previously earned good-time credits as a result of this prison disciplinary proceeding and is eligible for mandatory ‘ supervised release.' Petitioner was incarcerated at the Clements Unit at the time he filed this habeas petition and remains incarcerated at the Clements Unit. On August l l, 2010, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss petitioner’s habeas application for failure to state a claim upon Which relief may be granted For the reasons hereinafter expressed, the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
1 is of the opinion respondent’s Motion to Dismiss should be GRANTED and petitioner’s application
|Petitioner is presently incarcerated pursuant to a 2004 conviction for harassment by a person in a correctional facility out of Washington County, Texas and a 2006 conviction for theft greater than $20,000 but less than 3100,000 out of l-lam's County, Texas. Respondent ’s Motion lo Dismiss with Briefin Supporl, Exhibit A. Petitioner’$ offense history is confirmed by the on|ine Offender lnformation Detail database maintained by the Texas Department ofCriminal Justice, Correctional institutions Division (TDcJ-CID). `
IlABS4\D|SC|P\R&R\FlNLF.V- l 66.D|S-RIZSFMTN:Z
for federal habeas corpus relief should be DISMISSED. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Petitioner represents he was found guilty, on March 4, 2010, of the disciplinary violation of “bearing false witness” in case number 20100304FAUL. Petitioner contends his Step l grievance was denied March l7, 2010, and his Step 2 grievance was denied April l, 2010. Petitioner has not
replied to respondent’s motion to dismiss.
II. NO ACTUAL DISCIPLINARY CASE EXISTS
An actual controversy must exist at all stages of litigation in order for a case to be brought in federal court Cook v. Hanberrjy, 592 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1979). If a petitioner does not challenge an actual disciplinary proceeding, the interests habeas corpus was created to serve are not implicated See Woljj’v. McDonnell, 148 U.S. 539, 558, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2976, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Beyond the question of the existence of an actual case or controversy, however, there is a concern a petitioner may be abusing the writ of habeas corpus by intentionally misrepresenting material facts to a federal court in a habeas corpus petition. Even though pro se petitioners are afforded wide latitude, a court need not tolerate abuse of the litigation process by a pro se petitioner. Basing habeas corpus pleadings upon falsities constitutes such an abuse. See McCleskey v. Zanl, 499 U.S. 467, 496, lll S.Ct. 1454, 1471, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991) (establishing federal habeas corpus courts need not tolerate clearly abusive habeas corpus petitions); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521 n. 13, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1205, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982) (“Nothing in the traditions of habeas corpus requires the federal courts to . . . entertain collateral proceedings whose only purpose
is to vex, harass, or delay.”).
llAss4\DisclP\R&R\FINLizY-ian.r)ls_kiesPMrN;z Page 2 0f4
In this case, it appears petitioner has invented the prison disciplinary case upon which his habeas corpus petition is based. ` First, “bearing false witness” is not an offense for which a disciplinary case can be written under TDCJ-CID policy. See Disciplinary Rules and Procedures for Ojjfena'ers, published by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, § XIV, “TDCJ Disciplinary Offenses,” pgs. 23-33 (revised Jan. 2005). Second, as respondent verifies in his Motion to Dismiss, TDCJ-CID uses a purely numerical system to identify offender'disciplinary actions. The number petitioner provided, 20100304FAUL, is not a valid TDCJ-CID disciplinary case number (Respondenl ’s Molion to Dismz'ss with Briefin Supp0rt, E)’thibit B). Respondent additionally indicates “[t]he numbers listed above are not close to any of the offender disciplinaries'shown on the records of Finley, Jaicourrie Dewayne.” (Id.).
By basing this habeas corpus petition upon what appears to be a fabricated prison disciplinary action, petitioner has wasted valuable resources of both the federal judiciary and the Attomey General of Texas. Because an actual case or controversy does not appear to exist, this case should be DISMISSED. See Cook, 592 F.2d at 249. Additionally, petitioner should be cautioned that any future habeas corpus petition not based on an actual disciplinary case will not be tolerated See McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 496, 111 S.Ct. at 1474. Should petitioner continue to file 1 meritless petitions, the Court may impose sanctions upon him which would require him to pay a monetary fee before the`Court will consider any habeas corpus petition from him, or which could bar him from filing in federal court in the future.
III. RECOMMENDATION
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States
District Judge that the l\/Iotion to Dismiss filed by respondent be GRANTED and the Petition for a Writ
iiAssa\nisClP\R&R\i-‘im.i~;v-looms-kizstsz .pag€ 3 0f4
of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner JAICOURRIE DEWAYNE FINLEY
be DISMISSED.
IV. INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE
The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
ENTERED this M day of October, 2010.
CLINTON E. A: VERI'I`TE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *
Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation In the event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections is fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).
Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the Report and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United States'District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties A party’s failure to timely file written objections to the proposed tindings, conclusions, and recommendation contained in this report shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge in this report and accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass ’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988).
iiABs4\DisciP\R&R\i-'1NLEY-iés.ois-RESPMTN:z Page 4 Of 4
Cl€§l{ 95 DlS`l'li`l£i Cllll-RT li§lliii&Rii DiSi. 05 'lX FELED
g IN THE uNiTED sTATEs DisTRlcT couRo , ' _ .FoR THE NoRT_HERN DISTRICT oF TEXAS ~ mg m 22 m 91 57
AMARlLLo DIvIsIoN . . DEPllTY CLERK ,
Director, Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
JAICOURRIE DEWAYNE.FINLEY, § ' § Petitioner, § § v. § 2:10-CV-0113 § RICK THALER, § § § § §
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, GRANTING RESPONDENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, and DISMISSING PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner has filed with this Court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus purportedly challenging at least one prison disciplinary case. On September 30, 2010, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in this cause, recommending therein the petition for a writ of- habeas corpus be dismissed as petitioner failed to challenge any actual prison disciplinary proceeding. As-of this date, petitioner has not filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. l
The undersigned United States District Judge has made an independent examination of the record in this case. The Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation is hereby ADOPTED. Accordingly, the Motion to Dismiss filed by respondent is GRANTED, and`the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner is DISMISSED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
' , M ENTERED this day of
2010.
MARY LO UNITED ST ES DISTRICT JUDGE
Ciilii{ liSiDiS'iRiC? COllRT liOl€i"rlERii lilSl'. UF TX fli£i)
IN THE UNITED sTATEs DisTRICT coURT ZU§§ 861 422 in 9= 57 FoR THE NoRTHERN DisTRIcT oF TExAs _ A'MARILLO DIVISION Dipury. CLERK _
JAICOURRIE DEWAYNE FINLEY, § § Petitioner, § § . v. § 2:10-CV-0113 § RICK THALER, § Director, Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, § Correctional Institutions Division, § § Respondent. § J U D G M E N T
Of equal date herewith, the undersigned United States District Judge has entered an Order adopting the Report and Recommendation issued by the United States Magistrate Judge, granting respondent’s Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing petitioner’s application for a federal writ of habeas corpus. j t
JUDGMENT Is' 7ENTE`RED ACCORDIN' `
“e./ . ENTERED this day of
201,0.
MARY L U R INSON UNI'I`ED STA S DIST_RICT JUDGE
chair is msiizici couii"" .i'iiiiiii iii;i1 i)isi. or ix iii
IN THE uNiTED sTA'rEs DrsTRicT coURT FoR THE NoRTHERN DISTRICT oF TExAs 230 UC? 22 A¥i 9 5 7
AMARILLO DIVISION . g iiriiii ciiii< ._.,L_
JAICOURRIE DEWAYNE FINLEY, Petitioner, l
v. 2:10-CV-01l3
RICK THALER, v
Director, Texas Dep’t of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
4<0'3¢¢OJ¢¢O>¢»O'>OO'><`»OJ¢0>¢¢0'>¢¢0'#¢0'><¢0>
ORDER DENYING ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY
Having considered the record in this case, the undersigned is of theopinion petitioner has not made a prima facie showing for issuance of a` certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C.’ section 2253 (c)(l ). Consequently, for this reason and the reasons stated in the Report and Recommendation and the Order adopting the Report and Recommendation, granting respondent’s Motion to Dismiss,
and dismissing the petition, a Certificate of Appealability is hereby denied.
IT IS SO ORDERED. " '\ _ ' /W ENTERED this _ day of 2010.
UN"ITED STA ES DISTRICT JUDGE
fN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ’ AMARILLO DIVISION
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division,
JAICOURRIE DeWAYNE FINLEY, § § Petitioner, § § v. § 21 10-CV-0168 § RICK THALER, Director, § § § § §
" Respondent.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
Petitioner has filed with this Court a form Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody indicating he is challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding that took place at the Clements Unit in Potter County, Texas. Petitioner contends he lost 120 days of previously earned good-time credits as a result of this prison disciplinary proceeding and is eligible for mandatory supervised release.] Petitioner was incarcerated at the Clements Unit at the time he filed this habeas petition and remains incarcerated at the Clements Unit. On August 11, 2010, respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss petitioner’s habeas application for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted For the reasons hereinafter expressed,`the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge
is of the opinion respondent’s Motion to Disrniss should be GRANTED and petitioner’s application
Petitioner is presently incarcerated pursuant to a 2004 conviction for harassment by a person in a correctional facility out of Washington County, Texas and a 2006 conviction for theft greater than $20, 000 but less than $lOO, 000 out of Harris County, Texas. Respondent' s Molion to Dismi'ss with Briefin Support, Exhibit A. Petitioner’ s offense history is confirmed by the online Offender Inforrnation Detail database maintained by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correct_ional - ' Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID).
HABS4\DISC[P\R&R\FINLEY-l 68.DIS~R.ESFM|'N:2
for federal habeas corpus relief should be DISMISSED. I. l PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Petitioner represents he was found guilty, on February 18, 2010, of the disciplinary violation of “activating [the] First Amendment” in case number 200902`18WALT. Petitioner contends his Step 1 grievance was denied February 26, 2010, and his Step 2 grievance was denied March 19, 2010, Petitioner has not replied to respondent’s motion to dismiss.
An actual controversy must exist at all stages of litigation in order for a case to be brought in federal court.' Cook v. Hanberrjy, 592 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1979). If a petitioner does not challenge an actual disciplinary proceeding, the interests habeas corpus was created to serve are not implicated See Wolffv. McDonnell, 148 U.S. 539, 558, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 2976, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Beyond the question of the existence of an actual case or controversy, however, there is a concern a petitioner may be abusing the writ of habeas corpus by intentionally misrepresenting material facts to a federal court in a habeas corpus petition, Even though pro'se petitioners are affordedlwide latitude, a court need not tolerate abuse of the litigation process by a pro se petitioner. Basing`habeas corpus pleadings upon falsities constitutes such an abuse. See McCleskey v. Zrznt, 499 U.S. 467, 496, 111 S.Ct. 1454, 1471, 113 L.Ed.2d 517 (1991) (establishing federal habeas corpus courts need not tolerate clearly abusive habeas corpus petition$); Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509, 521 n. 13, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 1205, 71 L.Ed.2d 379 (1982) (“Nothing in the traditions of habeas corpus requires the federal courts to . . . entertain collateral proceedings whose only purpose
iiAizs~i\niscii=\n&R\FiNi.EY-isa.i)is-REsi>MrN;z Page 2 0f` 4
In this case, it appears petitioner has invented the prison disciplinary case upon which his' habeas corpus petition is based First, "‘activating [the] First Amendment” is not an offense for which a disciplinary case can be written under TDCJ-CID policy. See Disciplinary Rules and Proceduresfor Offenders, published by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, § XIV, “TDCJ Disciplinary Offenses,”. pgs. 23-33 (revised Jan. 2005). Second, as respondent verifies in his 1 Motion to Dismiss, TDCJ-CID uses a purely numerical system to identify offender disciplinary actions. The number petitioner provided, 20090218WALT, is not a valid TDCJ-CID disciplinary case number. (Respondent ’s Motion to Dismiss with Briefin Support, Exhibit B). Respondent additionally indicates “[t]he numbers listed above are not close to any of the, offender disciplinaries shown on the records of Finley, Jaicourrie Dewayne.” (Ia’.).
By basing this habeas corpus petition upon what appears to be a fabricated prison disciplinary action, petitioner has wasted valuable resources of both the federal judiciary and the Attomey General of Texas. Because an actual case or controversy does not appear to exist, this case should be DISMISSED. See Cook, 592 F.2d at 249. Additionally, petitioner should be cautioned that any fiiture habeas corpus petition not based on an actual disciplinary case will not be tolerated See McCleskey, 499 U.S. at 496, 111 S.Ct. at 1474. Should petitioner continue to file meritless petitions, the Court may impose sanctions upon him which would require him to pay a monetary fee before the Court will consider any habeas corpus petition from him, or which could bar him from filing in federal court in the future.
III. MMM lt is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States
District Judge that the Motion to Dismiss filed by respondent be GRANTED and the Petition for a Writ
iiAHs4\DisciP\R&R\FmLiav.mains-REstsz Page 3 of 4
cLERii us oisimcr couRi iioRiiiERii iiisr. o ` riti~:o F m
IN THE uNiTED sTATEs DisTRicT couRT FoR THE NoRTHERN DISTRICT or TExAs 20|2 APR ~2 A_H 1013 i _
AMARILLO DIvISIoN nEPuiY cusiii<_@£ __
JAICOURRIE FINLEY, PRo sE, also known as
JAICOURRIE DEWAYNE FINLEY, also known as
MATTHEW MacCALLISTER, TDCJ-CID No. 1354674,
Plaintiff, v.
2:1 l~CV-0055
BRUCE ZELLER, Regional Staffer, TDCJ,
QO'>OOOQ<)O<¢O'>¢O°¢O’>W>¢OJ
Defendant. ORDER DENY'ING MOTION FOR STAY AND APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
Beifore.the Court'is plaintiff"`s March 29, 2012 Motion-vigor Stay and Appo‘intment of Counsel{ filed in nthe above-referenced and numbered cause. ' By this motion,' plaintiff states that, asi ja defendant in a state court proceeding, he was found incompetent to stand trial. The Court notes that, in a nearly identical motion filed in cause no. 2:10-CV-0262 at docket no. 20, plaintiff gives the date of tha_t determination as March 10, 2010.
On this basis, plaintiff requests a stay of all proceedings except an order to answer until he is competent Plaintiff also requests appointment of counsel. -
The Court notes an evidentiary hearing was conducted in Cause No. 2:10-CV-0227 on December 16, 2010 to consider an earlier motion for appointment of counsel. A Sji)earsl hearing was also conducted then. Plaintiff motion for appointment of counsel was"""sub`sequently denied by l
separate order. 5 Plaintiff does not‘indicate anything has changed since that"time§"" ` w ’ 9 “'
'Spears`v. McCotler, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985).
Texas Department of Criminal Justice online records indicate plaintiff has been serving a 16~ year sentence for a theft conviction out of Harris County since August 2, 2006. Plaintiff does not identify the cause number of the alleged state court proceeding in which he was determined to be incompetent nor does he identify the court in which it was pending, the nature of the case, or whether any resolution to the case was subsequently reached Further, plaintiff does not explain what the basis was for the state court’s ruling or whether he has since received psychological or psychiatric treatment
Plaintiff initiated the instant case on March 18, 2011, more than a year after the alleged finding of incompetency.- Plaintiff offers no explanation why he did not inform the Court of this circumstance sooner.
Critically, plaintiff does not identify when, if ever, he expects to be found competent or resume prosecution of this case.
For all the reasons set forth above, plaintiffs motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for stay are DENIED.
Signed this the Q/"/ day of April, 2012.
W£M
CLINTON E AVERITTE ' United Stat Magistrate Judge