IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

BEAUMONT DIVISION

ROBERT CALDWELL §

VS. § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:23cv249

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID §

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Petitioner Robert Caldwell, 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 and the Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the

Assignment of Duties to the United States Magistrate Judge for findings of fact, conclusions of law,

and recommendations for the disposition of the case.

Factual Background

Petitioner is incarcerated due to a conviction for aggravated assault. Caldwell v. Dretke, 429

F.3d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 2005). Petitioner is not challenging his criminal conviction. Instead,

petitioner challenges a prison disciplinary conviction. In case number 20220074150, petitioner was

found guilty of threatening an officer. As a result of the conviction, petitioner received the

following punishment: (a) suspension of recreation and commissary privileges for 45 days; (b)

suspension of tablet use for 30 days; and (c) forfeiture of 360 days of previously earned good 

conduct time credits.

Analysis

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

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution where a disciplinary action results in a sanction that

implicates a liberty interest. Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 478 (1995). As a general rule, the

only sanction that imposes upon a liberty interest is the loss of good conduct time credits for inmates

Case 1:23-cv-00249-MJT-ZJH Document 10 Filed 07/25/23 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:

49
who are eligible for release on mandatory supervision. Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir.

2000).

As a result of his disciplinary conviction, petitioner was required to forfeit previously-earned

good conduct time credits. However, as set forth above, petitioner is incarcerated due to a

conviction for aggravated assault. Pursuant to Section 508.149(a)(7) of the Texas Government Code,

a person is not eligible for release on mandatory supervision if he is serving a sentence for or has

been previously convicted of aggravated assault.

As an inmate convicted of aggravated assault is not eligible for release on mandatory

supervision, any punishment imposed on petitioner as a result of his disciplinary conviction could

not have implicated 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 should be denied with prejudice.

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 written objections to the proposed findings of facts, conclusions of law

and recommendations contained herein 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’s, 79 F.3d

1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); FED. R. CIV. P. 72.

2 _________________________

Zack Hawthorn

United States Magistrate Judge SIGNED this 25th day of July, 2023.

Case 1:23-cv-00249-MJT-ZJH Document 10 Filed 07/25/23 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:

50