Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10877/USCOURTS-ca5-03-10877-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division
Appellee
James Oliver Lovett
Appellant

Document Text:

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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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

April 2, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-10877

Summary Calendar

 

JAMES OLIVER LOVETT,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,

CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 7:02-CV-212

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

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

James Oliver Lovett, Texas prisoner # 671501, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for

writ of habeas corpus in which he argued that his due process

rights were violated in connection with a prison disciplinary

proceeding. Lovett was found guilty of soliciting assistance

from a medical staff member to violate prison rules by requesting

 Case: 03-10877 Document: 0051291819 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/02/2004
No. 03-10877 

-2-

non-prescription cold medication from the pill window and lost 90

days of accrued good-time credits. 

Lovett challenges the district court’s determination that he

failed to state a cognizable ground for habeas relief. 

Specifically, Lovett argues that he was denied due process when

he lost accrued good-time credits as punishment for conduct which

he did not know was proscribed. Further, where a liberty

interest is at stake, Lovett argues that sufficiency review is

proper. 

The district court correctly determined that Lovett had a

constitutionally protected liberty interest in the loss of his

accrued good-time credits. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953,

957-58 (5th Cir. 2000). However, the district court erred when

it determined that Lovett failed to state a cognizable ground for

habeas relief. Lovett has consistently maintained that his due

process rights were violated when he was punished for violating a

rule of which he had no notice. This court has held that it is a

due process violation to punish a prisoner for behavior that he

could not have known was prohibited. Reeves v. Pettcox, 19 F.3d

1060, 1061 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Adams v. Gunnell, 729 F.2d

362, 369-70 (1984) (imposition of severe punishment for conduct

the prisoner could not have known was against prison rules

violates basic due process). Further, although judicial review

of a prison disciplinary proceeding is extremely limited, due

process requires that the findings be supported by some evidence

 Case: 03-10877 Document: 0051291819 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/02/2004
No. 03-10877 

-3-

in the record. See Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional

Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985).

Therefore, the district court’s judgment is VACATED and the

case is REMANDED to the district court for further proceedings

consistent with this opinion.

VACATED AND REMANDED. 

 Case: 03-10877 Document: 0051291819 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/02/2004