HAB54\DISCIP\R&R\BURKETT-MW.INEL:2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

MICHAEL WILLIAM BURKETT, SR., §

§

Petitioner, §

§

v. § 2:05-CV-0250

§

DOUGLAS DRETKE, Director, §

Texas Department of Criminal Justice, §

Correctional Institutions Division, §

§

Respondent. §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY PETITION

FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS BY A PERSON IN STATE CUSTODY

On September 12, 2005, petitioner filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of Habeas

Corpus by a Person in State Custody challenging the result of a May 20, 2005 prison disciplinary

proceeding. In order to challenge a state prison disciplinary adjudication by way of a federal petition

for a writ of habeas corpus, a petitioner must, at a minimum, be eligible for mandatory release and

have received a punishment sanction which included forfeiture of previously accrued good time

credits. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000). From the documentation petitioner

has provided the Court and based on petitioner’s recitation of all the punishment imposed, it appears

petitioner did not lose any previously accrued good time credits. Consequently, petitioner cannot

challenge the disciplinary decision through a federal habeas corpus proceeding and, thus, is not

entitled to federal habeas corpus relief.

RECOMMENDATION

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

 

 Case 2:05-cv-00250-J Document 2 Filed 09/20/05 Page 1 of 2 PageID 17
HAB54\DISCIP\R&R\BURKETT-MW.INEL:2 Page 2 of 2

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

petitioner MICHAEL WILLIAM BURKETT be DENIED.

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

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

Recommendation to petitioner by the most efficient means available. 

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

ENTERED this 20th day of September 2005.

 _______________________________

 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 2:05-cv-00250-J Document 2 Filed 09/20/05 Page 2 of 2 PageID 18