Case Name: Arthur Lee POWELL, Petitioner-Appellant v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-09-30
Citations: 294 F. App'x 166
Docket Number: No. 07-40298
Parties: Arthur Lee POWELL, Petitioner-Appellant v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 294
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
Arthur Lee POWELL, Petitioner-Appellant v. Nathaniel QUARTERMAN, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-40298
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Sept. 30, 2008.
Arthur Lee Powell, Beeville, TX, pro se.
Tommy Lee Skaggs, Office of the Attorney General, Postconviction Litigation Div., Austin, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Lee Powell, Texas prisoner # 438963, appeals the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, in which he challenged a disciplinary proceeding. A certificate of appealability was granted on whether Powell was entitled to mandatory supervised release, thereby creating a liberty interest in the process he received at the disciplinary hearing. The respondent asserts that Powell was entitled to mandatory supervised release and that the case should be remanded in light of Teague v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769, 773 (5th Cir. 2007). The respondent has also filed a motion to remand the case.
The respondent's motion to remand is GRANTED. The district court's dismissal of Powell's due process claim is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED to the district court for it to consider the merits of Powell's due process claim regarding the loss of good time credit.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.