Williams v. Director, TDCJ

• Court: District Court, E.D. Texas
• Decided: July 1, 2025
• Docket: 6:24-cv-00429
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS No. 6:24-cv-00429 DeJuan A. Williams, Petitioner, v. Director, TDCJ, Respondent.

ORDER This habeas corpus action was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). On January 3, 2025, the magis- trate judge issued a report recommending that the court deny the habeas petition, dismiss this case with prejudice, and deny a cer- tificate of appealability sua sponte. Doc. 10. Petitioner filed timely written objections. Doc. 11. The court reviews the objected-to portions of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation de novo. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The magistrate judge recom- mended dismissal because petitioner failed to identify a constitu- tionally protected liberty interest being infringed by the fact or du- ration of his confinement. Doc. 10 at 3-5. Of the punishments pe- titioner faces due to his disciplinary conviction, none of them af- fects the fact that he is confined or the length of his confinement. Habeas relief is therefore unavailable. Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000) (“a federal habeas action is only available to challenge the fact or duration of confinement, not the condi- tions of confinement” (citing Prezser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 493 (1973))). Although loss of good-time credits can merit habeas relief, petitioner acknowledged that he is not eligible for early re- lease under mandatory supervision. Doc. 7 at 5. Petitioner’s objection rehashes the alleged unfairness of his prison disciplinary conviction, but it does not identify any error in the magistrate judge’s analysis. Specifically, petitioner does not

-l-

dispute that his disciplinary conviction had no impact on the length of his incarceration. Having reviewed the magistrate judge’s report de novo, and being satisfied that it contains no error, the court overrules peti- tioner’s objections and accepts the report’s findings and recom- mendation. Petitioner’s habeas petition is denied, and this case is dismissed with prejudice. This dismissal is without prejudice to petitioner’s ability to prosecute the related civil-rights lawsuit that was severed from this action. See Doc. 12. A certificate of ap- pealability is denied. Any pending motions in this matter are de- nied as moot. So ordered by the court on July 1, 2025. faboke BARKER United States District Judge

-2-