IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

J.C. FOSTER §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-cv-116

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner J.C. Foster, an inmate confined within the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

Correctional Institutions Division, proceeding pro se, filed this Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. This matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 636 for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations for the disposition

of the case.

Factual Background

Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary conviction for possessing contraband. He states

he was convicted on December 22, 2022, and that, as a result of conviction, he was demoted to a

more restrictive custodial classification.

Analysis

Prisoners charged with disciplinary rule violations are entitled to certain due process rights

under the Fourteenth Amendment when the disciplinary action may result in a sanction that will

impose upon a liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). With respect to

disciplinary proceedings, protected liberty interest are limited to those punishments that impose an

atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. 

Id. at 484. As a general rule, the only sanction that imposes upon a liberty interest of an inmate

confined within the Texas state prison system is the loss of good conduct time credits for an inmate

whose release on mandatory supervision will be delayed by the loss of the credits. Malchi v. Thaler,

211 F.3d 953, 957-58 (5th Cir. 2000).

Case 9:23-cv-00116-MAC-CLS Document 2 Filed 07/20/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 12
Petitioner states he was not required to forfeit previously-earned good conduct time credits

as a result of his disciplinary conviction (Doc. #1, p. 5.). As a result, the punishment imposed as a

result of the disciplinary conviction did not implicate a protected liberty interest. Petitioner was

therefore not entitled to due process before receiving such punishment and this petition for writ of

habeas corpus should be denied.

Recommendation

This Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 should be denied.

Objections

Within 14 days after receipt of the magistrate judge’s report, any party may serve and file

written objections to the findings of facts, conclusions of law and recommendations of the magistrate

judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C).

Failure to timely file objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law and

recommendations contained within this report within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved

party from entitlement to de novo review by the district court of the proposed findings, conclusions

and recommendations and from appellate review of factual findings and legal conclusions accepted

by the district court except on grounds of plain error. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79

F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

2

.

___________________________________

Christine L Stetson

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE SIGNED this the 20th day of July, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00116-MAC-CLS Document 2 Filed 07/20/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 13