Filed: Feb. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Feb. 29, 2016
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CLINTON E. AVERITTE , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner has filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding that took place at the Jordan Unit in Gray County, Texas. Petitioner is no longer confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID) and has failed to provide the Court with his pr
Summary: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CLINTON E. AVERITTE , Magistrate Judge . Petitioner has filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding that took place at the Jordan Unit in Gray County, Texas. Petitioner is no longer confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID) and has failed to provide the Court with his pre..
More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS PETITION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS
CLINTON E. AVERITTE, Magistrate Judge.
Petitioner has filed with this Court a Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding that took place at the Jordan Unit in Gray County, Texas. Petitioner is no longer confined in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division (TDCJ-CID) and has failed to provide the Court with his present mailing address.1 The undersigned United States Magistrate Judge is of the opinion petitioner's application for federal habeas corpus relief should be DISMISSED.
I.
BACKGROUND
On January 29, 2014, in Case No. 20140151039, petitioner was notified he was being charged with the prison disciplinary offense of possession of contraband. On January 30, 2014, petitioner was found guilty of the charged offense. Punishment assessed included the forfeiture of ten (10) days previously accrued good time.
Petitioner unsuccessfully challenged this disciplinary proceeding through the prison grievance system. On February 4, 2014, relief was denied at Step 1 with the following response:
Major disciplinary case 20140151039 has been reviewed. The disciplinary charge was appropriate for the offense and the guilty verdict was supported by a preponderance of the evidence. TDCJ's Disciplinary Rules and Procedures state when an officer witnesses or has knowledge of any act by an offender which is in violation of the rules and regulations of TDCJ, the employee first will attempt, if appropriate, to resolve the matter informally. It does not establish informal resolution as a procedural requirement that must be rendered in every case. Disciplinary records reflect that you were served your case on January 29, 2014 at 12:36 p.m. and your trial was conducted on 01/30/14 at 2:24 p.m. which is over 24 hours notice. All due process requirements were satisfied and the punishment assessed by the Disciplinary Hearing Officer was within agency guidelines. No further action warranted.
On February 11, 2014, relief was denied at Step 2 with findings that the disciplinary charge was appropriate for the offense, the guilty verdict was supported by a preponderance of the evidence, all due process requirements were satisfied, and the punishment assessed was within agency guidelines. On April 3, 2014, petitioner filed the instant habeas petition challenging the disciplinary proceeding decision.2
II.
PETITIONER'S ALLEGATIONS
Petitioner seeks to have the disciplinary proceeding decision overturned. Because petitioner has failed to provide the Court with his current address, an analysis of his claims is unnecessary.
III.
CLAIMS ARE MOOT
Recent inquiry to the Records Division of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, revealed petitioner discharged his 10-year holding sentence on January 22, 2016 and was released from state prison. Petitioner has fully served and discharged his sentence and is no longer in respondent's custody. The relief sought in petitioner's habeas application, i.e., the reinstatement of the 10 days lost good time, cannot be granted. Since this Court cannot grant petitioner the relief he seeks in his habeas application, the petition is moot under the continuing case and controversy requirement and subject to immediate dismissal.
IV.
WANT OF PROSECUTION
Petitioner's last pleading in this case was filed June 2, 2014. Petitioner has not communicated with the Court in any manner with regard to this case since that date. Petitioner failed to advise the Court of his projected release, his actual release, or the discharge of his sentence, and has not provided the Court with a change of address. Three (3) separate mailings of court documents forwarded to petitioner at his last known address have been returned with the notation, "RTS [Return to Sender] Discharged." Petitioner has abandoned this case or has neglected his case to such an extent that it warrants immediate dismissal for want of prosecution.
V.
RECOMMENDATION
It is the RECOMMENDATION of the United States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State Custody filed by petitioner GEORGE ALVIN JONES be DISMISSED for want of prosecution and as moot.
VI.
INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE
The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Report and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
