Johnson v. Director, TDCJ-CID

Opinion

Not For Printed Publication IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION ELLOYD JOHNSON §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:19cv77 DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID § ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ACCEPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Petitioner Elloyd Johnson, an inmate confined at the Polunsky Unit, proceeding pro se, brought this petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court referred this matter to the Honorable Keith F. Giblin, United States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and orders of this court. The Magistrate Judge recommends the petition be dismissed. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record and pleadings. Petitioner filed objections to the Report and Recommendation. This requires 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 petitioner’s objections should be overruled. Petitioner’s claims concerning the conditions of his confinement, including his claim regarding the $45.00 damage assessment, have been severed from this action and are proceeding as a separate civil rights action. As the Magistrate Judge determined, petitioner’s claims contesting the validity of his disciplinary conviction do not present grounds for habeas relief because the deprivations imposed did not result in the infringement of a constitutionally protected interest. Thus, this petition should be dismissed. Furthermore, petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An appeal from a judgment denying federal habeas corpus relief may not proceed unless a judge issues

a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253; FED. R. APP. P. 22(b). The standard for granting a certificate of appealability, like that for granting a certificate of probable cause to appeal under prior law, requires the movant to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000); Elizalde v. Dretke, 362 F.3d 323, 328 (5th Cir. 2004); see also Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U.S. 880, 893 (1982). In making that substantial showing, the movant need not establish that he should prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate that the issues are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve the issues in a different manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a certificate

of appealability is resolved in favor of the movant, and the severity of the penalty may be considered in making this determination. See Miller v. Johnson, 200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 849 (2000). Here, petitioner has not shown that any of the issues raised by his claims are subject to debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions advanced by the movant are not novel and have been consistently resolved adversely to his position. In addition, the questions presented are not worthy of encouragement to proceed further. Therefore, petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Accordingly, a

certificate of appealability shall not be issued. 2 O R D E R Accordingly, petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the Magistrate Judge are correct and the report of the Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED. A final judgment will be entered in this case in accordance with the Magistrate

Judge’s recommendations.