Gray v. Dretke

Fifth Circuit

Gray v. Dretke

135 F. App'x 711

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 21, 2005

Docket04-50191

StatusUnpublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 135 F. App'x 711 (Gray v. Dretke) 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

Gray v. Dretke, 135 F. App'x 711 (5th Cir. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Charles Robert Gray, Jr. (“Gray”), Texas prisoner # 796322, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. A certificate of appealability was previously granted. Gray argues that his petition, which he filed to challenge the loss of good-time credits due to a prison disciplinary proceeding, was timely filed. The respondent argues that Gray’s appeal is moot due to his release on parole on October 14, 2004.

The respondent’s arguments are meritorious. Gray has not shown an injury-in-fact, and his habeas claims are moot due to *712 his release on parole. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); see Ex parte Hallmark, 883 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (good-time credits apply only to an inmate’s eligibility for parole or mandatory supervision and do not affect the length of the inmate’s sentence). Further, the revocation of Gray’s parole would not result in the restoration of his good-time credits. See Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1075-76 (5th Cir.1997); Tex.Code Ann. § 498.004(b) (2005). Accordingly, Gray’s appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Charles Robert Gray, Jr. (“Gray”), Texas prisoner # 796322, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as time-barred. A certificate of appealability was previously granted. Gray argues that his petition, which he filed to challenge the loss of good-time credits due to a prison disciplinary proceeding, was timely filed. The respondent argues that Gray’s appeal is moot due to his release on parole on October 14, 2004.

The respondent’s arguments are meritorious. Gray has not shown an injury-in-fact, and his habeas claims are moot due to *712 his release on parole. Spencer v. Kemna, 523 U.S. 1, 7, 118 S.Ct. 978, 140 L.Ed.2d 43 (1998); see Ex parte Hallmark, 883 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex.Crim.App.1994) (good-time credits apply only to an inmate’s eligibility for parole or mandatory supervision and do not affect the length of the inmate’s sentence). Further, the revocation of Gray’s parole would not result in the restoration of his good-time credits. See Hallmark v. Johnson, 118 F.3d 1073, 1075-76 (5th Cir.1997); Tex.Code Ann. § 498.004(b) (2005). Accordingly, Gray’s appeal is DISMISSED AS MOOT.

*

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)

135 F. App'x 711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/gray-v-dretke-ca5-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack