HAB54\DISCIP\R&R\ROLLINS-254.DSM-RELEASED:2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

JACOB ROLLINS, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

v. § 2:04-CV-0254

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

§

Respondent. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS AS MOOT

Came for consideration the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State

Custody filed by petitioner JACOB ROLLINS. By his application, petitioner challenges the

result of a disciplinary proceeding which resulted in the forfeiture of two hundred (200) days

previously accrued good time credits. Specifically, petitioner alleges the finding that he

committed a disciplinary violation can not stand because he was (1) denied the right to prepare a

defense while he was held in pre-hearing detention; (2) denied the right to effective assistance of

counsel at the disciplinary hearing; and (3) subjected to cruel and unusual punishment in that his

pre-hearing detention holding cell did not have water or a toilet, he was held there more than 

nine (9) hours, and is diabetic.

 

 Case 2:04-cv-00254-J Document 8 Filed 04/05/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID 43
 1

Petitioner did not advise the Court of his release, nor has he submitted a change of address to the Court.

HAB54\DISCIP\R&R\ROLLINS-254.DSM-RELEASED:2 2

Inquiry to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division

on this date reveals petitioner was released from confinement to mandatory supervision on

February 15, 2006.1 Petitioner’s release from confinement renders the instant habeas application

moot. Petitioner challenges only the disciplinary proceeding in this action and the resulting loss

of good time credits. Consequently, the only relief available to petitioner if successful in this

matter was the restoration of the good time credits forfeited by the disciplinary action. As

petitioner has been released to mandatory supervision and is no longer incarcerated, his request

for a return of good time credits is moot. Under Texas Government Code section 498.003(a),

“[g]ood conduct time applies only to eligibility for parole or mandatory supervision as provided

by Section 508.145 or 508.147 and does not otherwise affect an inmate’s term.” Therefore, it is

the opinion of the undersigned that because of petitioner’s release to mandatory supervision, the

issues raised in his writ of habeas corpus are moot under the continuing controversy requirement

and that such petition should be dismissed.

RECOMMENDATION

It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United

States District Judge that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody

filed by petitioner JACOB ROLLINS be DISMISSED as moot.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a file-marked copy of this Report and

Recommendation to petitioner and to counsel of record for respondent by the most efficient

 

 Case 2:04-cv-00254-J Document 8 Filed 04/05/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID 44
HAB54\DISCIP\R&R\ROLLINS-254.DSM-RELEASED:2 3

means available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

ENTERED this 5th day of April 2006.

 _______________________________

 CLINTON E. AVERITTE

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In

the event a party wishes to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing

objections is eleven (11) days from the date of filing as indicated by the file mark on the first

page of this recommendation. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b), and the

parties are allowed a 3-day service by mail extension, Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e). Therefore, any

objections must be filed on or before the fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is

filed. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); R. 4(a)(1) of Miscellaneous Order No. 6, as

authorized by Local Rule 3.1, Local Rules of the United States District Courts for the Northern

District of Texas. 

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the

Report and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections with the United

States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A party’s failure to

timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation

contained in this report shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds of plain error, from

attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal conclusions, and

recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge in this report and accepted by the district

court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996);

Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988).

 

 Case 2:04-cv-00254-J Document 8 Filed 04/05/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID 45