Hutchins v. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole

E.D. Texas

Hutchins v. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole

DecidedJune 28, 2024

Docket9:23-cv-00168

StatusUnknown

This text of Hutchins v. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole (Hutchins v. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hutchins v. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole, (E.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BRIAN HUTCHINS, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-168 § TEXAS BD. PARDONS & PAROLES, § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Brian Hutchins, a prisoner confined at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes the objections are without merit. Texas prisoners do not have a right to parole that is protected by the United States Constitution or federal law. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011); Johnson vy. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (Sth Cir. 1997). Because Plaintiff does not have a liberty interest in parole, he cannot challenge the constitutionality of state parole procedures. Wansley v. Mississippi Dep’t of Corr., 769 F.3d 309, 312-13 (Sth Cir. 2014). ORDER Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections (#9) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge (#7) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with this order.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 28th day of June, 2024.

PNww be Orne. MARCIA A.CRONE- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BRIAN HUTCHINS, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-168 § TEXAS BD. PARDONS & PAROLES, § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff Brian Hutchins, a prisoner confined at the Polunsky Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Zack Hawthorn, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Plaintiff filed objections to the magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation. The court has conducted a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and the applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). After careful consideration, the court concludes the objections are without merit. Texas prisoners do not have a right to parole that is protected by the United States Constitution or federal law. Swarthout v. Cooke, 562 U.S. 216, 219 (2011); Johnson vy. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (Sth Cir. 1997). Because Plaintiff does not have a liberty interest in parole, he cannot challenge the constitutionality of state parole procedures. Wansley v. Mississippi Dep’t of Corr., 769 F.3d 309, 312-13 (Sth Cir. 2014). ORDER Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections (#9) are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the report of the magistrate judge (#7) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with this order.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 28th day of June, 2024.

PNww be Orne. MARCIA A.CRONE- UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Hutchins v. Texas Board of Pardons and Parole, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hutchins-v-texas-board-of-pardons-and-parole-txed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack