IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

LUFKIN DIVISION

DRALON PATTERSON §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-cv-213

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Dralon Patterson, 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 states that in 2021, he was convicted of a criminal offense in the 5th District Court

of Dallas County, Texas. He was sentenced to life imprisonment.

Petitioner is not challenging his criminal conviction. Instead, he challenges a prison

disciplinary conviction. Petitioner states that as a result of the disciplinary conviction, he lost certain

privileges, was demoted to a more restrictive custody classification and was required to forfeit 30

days of previously-earned good conduct time credits.

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

Case 9:23-cv-00213-MAC-CLS Document 6 Filed 12/14/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 3
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).

Petitioner states he was required to forfeit previously-earned good conduct time credits as

a result of his disciplinary conviction. However, as Petitioner was sentenced to life imprisonment,

he is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision. Arnold v. Cockrell, 306 F.3d 277, 279 (5th

Cir. 2002) (citing Ex parte Franks, 71 S.W.3d 327, 328 (Tex. Crim. App. 2001)). 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 14th day of December, 2023.

Case 9:23-cv-00213-MAC-CLS Document 6 Filed 12/14/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 4