You're viewing Docket Item 14 from the case Parrott v. Director, TDCJ-CID. View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 6:13-cv-00361-LED-JKG Document 14 Filed 07/30/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 72

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

TYLER DIVISION

JIMMIE MARK PARROTT, JR. #1621310

VS.

DIRECTOR, TDCJ-CID

§

§

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:13cv361

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

The above-entitled and numbered petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 was heretofore referred to United States Magistrate Judge Judith K. Guthrie. The Report of

the Magistrate Judge, which contains proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the

disposition of such action, has been presented for consideration. Petitioner has filed objections.

Having made a de novo review of the objections raised by Petitioner to the Report, the Court

is of the opinion that the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct and

Petitioner’s objections are without merit. Specifically, Petitioner contends he has demonstrated the

loss of a liberty interest because he alleges that a recent parole opportunity was denied and set-off

for a year due to his disciplinary case. However, that does not address the validity of the claims in

his § 2254 petition; furthermore, his argument fails because a prisoner has no right to parole, only

a mere hope that the benefit will be obtained, and therefore has no liberty interest such as Petitioner

now claims. Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U.S. 1, 11, 99 S. Ct. 2100, 60 L. Ed. 2d

668 (1979) (citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 570-71, 92 S. Ct. 2701, 33 L. Ed. 2d 548

(1972)); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir. 2000) (there is no constitutional expectancy

1

Case 6:13-cv-00361-LED-JKG Document 14 Filed 07/30/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 73

of parole in Texas and, accordingly, any delay in a petitioner’s consideration for parole cannot

support a constitutional claim). Petitioner’s objections are therefore without merit and are overruled.

It is therefore

ORDERED that the Petitioner’s objections are OVERRULED and his petition pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED and his action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. A certificate

of appealability is DENIED. All motions by either party not previously ruled on are hereby

DENIED.

2

. SIGNED this 19th day of December, 2011.So ORDERED and SIGNED this 30th day of July, 2013.