UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

DRALON PATTERSON, §

§

Petitioner, §

§

versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 9:23-CV-213

§

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-ID, §

§

Respondent. §

MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING 

THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

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. Petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary conviction.

The court previously referred this matter to the Honorable Christine L. Stetson, United

States Magistrate Judge, at Beaumont, Texas, for consideration pursuant to applicable laws and

orders of the court. The magistrate judge has submitted a Report and Recommendation of United

States Magistrate Judge recommending the petition be denied.

The court has received the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge,

along with the record, pleadings, and all available evidence. Petitioner filed objections to the

Report and Recommendation. 

The court has conducted a de novo review of the petitioner’s objections in relation to the

pleadings and the applicable law. After careful consideration, the court is of the opinion the

objections are without merit. The authorities cited in the Report and Recommendation establish

that as petitioner is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision, the sanction imposed

following his disciplinary conviction did not implicate a protected liberty interest. In his

objections, petitioner asserts he has a protected liberty interest because of his disciplinary

conviction’s potential effect on the direct appeal of his criminal conviction. However, the fact

Case 9:23-cv-00213-MAC-CLS Document 9 Filed 01/17/24 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 8
that petitioner was convicted for violating institutional rules would not be relevant to the issues

raised by a direct appeal of his criminal conviction.

ORDER

Accordingly, the objections filed by petitioner (#7) are OVERRULED. The findings of

fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct and the report of the magistrate

judge (#6) is ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered denying the petition.

Furthermore, petitioner is not entitled to the issuance of a certificate of appealability. An

appeal from a final judgment denying habeas relief may not proceed unless a certificate of

appealability is issued. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The standard for a certificate of appealability

requires the petitioner to make a substantial showing of the denial of a federal constitutional right. 

See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 483-84 (2000). To make a substantial showing, the

petitioner need not establish that he would prevail on the merits. Rather, he must demonstrate

that the issues he raised are subject to debate among jurists of reason, that a court could resolve

the issues in a different manner, or that the questions presented are worthy of encouragement to

proceed further. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 483-84. Any doubt regarding whether to grant a

certificate of appealability should be resolved in favor of the petitioner. See Miller v. Johnson,

200 F.3d 274, 280-81 (5th Cir. 2000).

Petitioner has not shown that the issue of whether his petition is meritorious is subject to

debate among jurists of reason. The factual and legal questions raised by petitioner have been

consistently resolved adversely to his position and the questions presented are not worthy of

encouragement to proceed further. Petitioner has failed to make a sufficient showing to merit the

issuance of a certificate of appealability. Thus, a certificate of appealability will not be issued. 

2

Case 9:23-cv-00213-MAC-CLS Document 9 Filed 01/17/24 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 9