1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

TYLER DIVISION 

RANDALL ALLAN COUNTS, 

 Petitioner, 

v. 

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID, 

 Respondent. 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

Case No. 6:23-cv-295-JDK-KNM 

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 

OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

Petitioner Randall Allan Counts, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice 

inmate proceeding pro se, filed this federal petition for a writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The petition was referred to United States Magistrate 

Judge K. Nicole Mitchell for findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations 

for disposition. 

A. Background 

Petitioner appears to contend that the plea agreement supporting his 

underlying conviction should be set aside, and he should be allowed to “re-negotiate” 

due to the conditions of confinement in TDCJ. He complains that he was placed in 

administrative segregation against his will and in violation of TDCJ rules. Petitioner 

also points to two disciplinary cases, charging him with being out of place and 

tampering with a door-locking mechanism. Petitioner also complained of the 

Case 6:23-cv-00295-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 09/18/23 Page 1 of 7 PageID #: 73
2 

conditions of confinement in administrative segregation, the living conditions during 

the Covid-19 lockdown, and claims of inadequate medical care. 

On June 28, 2023, Judge Mitchell issued a Report and Recommendation 

recommending that the Court deny the petition and dismiss Plaintiff’s claims. 

Specifically, the Report recommends dismissal without prejudice as to Petitioner’s 

challenges to his criminal conviction for failure to exhaust state remedies; dismissal 

without prejudice as to any claim regarding disciplinary case no. 20230174103 

because it was ongoing at the time of the petition; dismissal with prejudice as to 

disciplinary case no. 20230143728 because it does not implicate any constitutionally 

protected liberty interest; and dismissal without prejudice as to Petitioner’s claims 

concerning medical care and conditions of confinement because these claims are not 

cognizable in a habeas case, but should be raised under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Report 

also recommended that a certificate of appealability be denied. Docket No. 6. 

Petitioner timely objected. Docket No. 10. 

B. Legal Standard 

Where a party objects within fourteen days of service of the Report and 

Recommendation, the Court reviews the objected-to findings and conclusions of the 

Magistrate Judge de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In conducting a de novo review, the 

Court examines the entire record and makes an independent assessment under the 

law. Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en 

banc), superseded on other grounds by statute, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (extending the 

time to file objections from ten to fourteen days). 

Case 6:23-cv-00295-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 09/18/23 Page 2 of 7 PageID #: 74
3 

C. Discussion 

Petitioner’s objections make clear that he is primarily challenging his 

placement in administrative segregation. Docket No. 10 at 2. However, placement 

in administrative segregation implicates the conditions of his confinement rather 

than the fact or length of confinement, and therefore is not cognizable in a habeas 

corpus petition. See Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 820-21 (5th Cir. 1997). In fact, 

Petitioner’s objections do not mention any relief sought pertaining to the fact or 

length of his confinement in prison. 

Regardless, Petitioner’s claim lacks merit on its face. In order to invoke the 

procedural protections of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, the 

petitioner must show that a protected liberty interest is at stake. Wilkerson v. 

Goodwin, 774 F.3d 845, 851 (5th Cir. 2014). In the context of disciplinary convictions 

and confinement in administrative segregation, such interests are generally limited 

to restrictions which lengthen the prisoner’s sentence and restraints imposing 

atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents 

of prison life. Id. 

As a general rule, prisoners do not have a liberty interest in their custodial 

classification, including their transfer into administrative segregation. Hernandez v. 

Velasquez, 522 F.3d 556, 562; Bailey v. Fisher, 647 F. App’x 472, 474 (5th Cir. 2016). 

While administrative segregation, without more, does not constitute a deprivation of 

a constitutionally cognizable liberty interest, see Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th 

Cir. 1995), the severity of the restrictive conditions and their durations are 

considered, on a case-by-case basis, in deciding whether a prisoner has a liberty 

Case 6:23-cv-00295-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 09/18/23 Page 3 of 7 PageID #: 75
4 

interest in his custodial classification. Carmouche v. Hooper, 2023 WL 5116377 (5th

Cir. Aug. 10, 2023). 

Petitioner states that in administrative segregation, he was put in a singleman cell. He says that when he was on close custody, the recreation period involved 

multiple social activities including basketball games, handball, dominos, and chess 

and other such games, conducted in the sunlight, for at least two hours a day. By 

contrast, he asserts that everything in administrative segregation is done in singleman fashion and requires two officers to escort him to and from every destination he

attends, handcuffed and having been strip searched. He also says that close custody 

has school and job accessibility, and that as a close custody inmate, he is entitled to 

a six-month classification review for a possible move to medium custody. 

None of the circumstances described by Petitioner sets out an atypical or 

significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Hernandez, 

522 F.3d at 563. He has no constitutionally protected liberty interest in whether or 

not he is single-celled. See Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347–50 (1981); Duncan 

v. Puckett, 91 F.3d 137, 1996 WL 400039 (5th Cir. 1996). The fact that Petitioner

cannot participate in recreational games with other prisoners likewise does not raise 

a constitutional claim. See Alberti v. Klevenhagen, 790 F.2d 1220, 1228 (5th Cir. 

1986). Nor does he have any constitutional right to attend school or hold a job. Bulger 

v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48, 49 (5th Cir. 1995); Miles v. Windham Sch. Dist.,

78 F.App’x 418, 419 (5th Cir. 2003). And escorts and searches are a normal part of 

Case 6:23-cv-00295-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 09/18/23 Page 4 of 7 PageID #: 76
5 

prison life and do not impose significant hardship in relation to the ordinary incidents 

of prison life. Waddleton v. Jackson, 445 F. App’x 808, 808 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Petitioner also asserts that he has been in administrative segregation for some 

thirty days. Docket No. 10 at 3. This length of time is too brief to give rise to a liberty 

interest in and of itself. Cf. Carmouche, 2023 WL 5116377 at *4 (remanding for 

further consideration a complaint of being held in segregation for sixteen months); 

Bailey, 647 F.App’x at 477 (remanding for further consideration where prisoner had 

been segregated for as many as five years). By contrast, the Supreme Court has 

stated that a thirty-day period of segregated confinement did not give rise to a 

protected liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995). While 

Petitioner appears to complain that TDCJ personnel did not follow prison rules with 

regard to his placement in segregation, the failure to follow prison rules does not 

amount to a constitutional claim. McFaul v. Valenzuela, 684 F.3d 564, 579 (5th Cir. 

2012). Similarly, the denial of review hearings for thirteen months does not impose 

an atypical or significant hardship. Hernandez, 522 F.3d at 562; Patel v. Haro, 470 

F. App’x 240, 244 (5th Cir. 2012) (denial of review hearings for four months was not

a constitutional violation). Petitioner has not shown the deprivation of a protected 

liberty interest with regard to his placement in administrative segregation, and his 

objections in this regard are without merit. 

Petitioner poses the question of whether his convicting court considered that 

there would be an extended time period where there were “no adequately reliable 

rules and procedures for staff and prisoners.” Docket No. 10 at 7. While the relevance 

Case 6:23-cv-00295-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 09/18/23 Page 5 of 7 PageID #: 77
6 

of this question is not entirely clear, the Court assumes Petitioner is arguing that his 

conviction is somehow invalid or should be set aside because he did not fully 

understand prison life. But the Magistrate Judge correctly concluded that any 

challenge to Petitioner’s conviction fails because Petitioner has not exhausted his 

state remedies for such a claim. Docket No. 6 at 6. While Petitioner says that he 

cannot exhaust state remedies because Texas has no habeas corpus remedies for 

prison conditions of confinement, this assertion lacks merit because conditions of 

confinement claims are not cognizable in habeas corpus. 

The Magistrate Judge also correctly determined that to the extent Petitioner 

challenged the two disciplinary cases to which he alluded, these claims lacked merit. 

Docket No. 6 at 7–9. As the Report explains, one challenge was premature, and 

Petitioner also failed to show that the punishment imposed in the disciplinary cases 

implicated a constitutionally protected liberty interest. 

Finally, the Magistrate Judge also correctly concluded that Petitioner’s claims 

concerning the conditions of confinement in administrative segregation, the living 

conditions during the Covid-19 lockdown, and claims of inadequate medical care were 

not cognizable in habeas corpus because they do not implicate the fact or length of his 

confinement. Docket No. 6 at 9–10. 

D. Conclusion

Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and the record in this case, 

the Court has determined that the Report of the United States Magistrate Judge is 

correct, and Petitioner’s objections are without merit. The Court therefore 

OVERRULES Petitioner’s objections (Docket No. 10) and ADOPTS the Report and 

Case 6:23-cv-00295-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 09/18/23 Page 6 of 7 PageID #: 78
7 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 6) as the opinion of the District 

Court. Petitioner’s petition for habeas corpus is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice 

as to Petitioner’s claims concerning disciplinary case no. 20230143728, and 

DISMISSED without prejudice as to all other claims in the case, including 

Petitioner’s claims concerning the conditions of confinement and his medical care. 

Further, the Court DENIES a certificate of appealability, with the denial of this 

certificate pertaining only to an appeal of this present case and not affecting 

Petitioner’s right to seek such relief through civil rights litigation as he may believe 

himself entitled. 

So ORDERED and SIGNED this day of

___________________________________

JEREMY D. KERNODLE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18th September, 2023.

Case 6:23-cv-00295-JDK-KNM Document 12 Filed 09/18/23 Page 7 of 7 PageID #: 79