Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11049/USCOURTS-ca5-03-11049-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

March 1, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-11049

Summary Calendar

 

RENE R. BELASCO,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

JOSEPH BIDDEN; BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN/JANE DOE,

Respondents-Appellees.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:03-CV-165

--------------------

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Petitioner-Appellant Rene R. Belasco (Belasco), federal

prisoner no. 15787-053, is serving a 216-month sentence for a drugtrafficking conspiracy. Belasco filed suit under 28 U.S.C. § 2241

complaining that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is calculating his

good-time credits in a manner contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) and

thus depriving him of earned good-time credits without due process

of law. 

 Case: 03-11049 Document: 0051165420 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/01/2004
2

The district court dismissed Belasco’s complaint sua sponte on

grounds that Belasco has no constitutionally protected right to

good-time credits. We review the district court’s decision de

novo. See Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1997). 

Although there is no intrinsic constitutional right to good

time credit, when the government creates such a right, a prisoner’s

interest in good time falls within the Fourteenth Amendment’s

liberty concerns. See id. at 768. We have yet to determine

whether a federal statute creates a constitutionally protected

interest in good-time credits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b); see also

Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974) (addressing state

statute); Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th

Cir. 2000) (assuming without deciding). If there is a

constitutional interest, Belasco’s claim would be properly raised

in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas proceeding. See Davis v. Fechtel, 150

F.3d 486, 490 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Cleto 956 F.2d 83,

84 (5th Cir. 1992). 

Here, however, the factual record is undeveloped, particularly

with regard to the time Belasco has served and the good-time for

which he has been credited. In addition, the BOP has not had an

opportunity to clarify, for the record, its methods of calculating

good-time in general or Belasco’s good-time credit in particular.

Consequently, the record on appeal is inadequate for us to conduct

a meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment

of the district court and remand the case to that court for further

 Case: 03-11049 Document: 0051165420 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/01/2004
3

development of the record. See Madison, 104 F.3d at 769 (vacating

and remanding).

Belasco has filed a motion for appointment of counsel and for

consolidation of this case with another case, which he asserts is

pending in the Northern District of Texas. These and any other

outstanding motions are denied.

JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED; ALL MOTIONS DENIED.

 Case: 03-11049 Document: 0051165420 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/01/2004