Turner v. Thaler, No. 4:2009cv03562 - Document 14 (S.D. Tex. 2010)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM AND OPINION Granting 9 MOTION for Summary Judgment With Brief In Support. The Court denies a certificate of appealability.(Signed by Judge Lee H Rosenthal) Parties notified.(clamey, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
IN TH E U N ITED STA TES DISTRIC T C O U R T FO R T H E SO U TH ER N DISTR ICT O F TEX A S H O U STO N D IV ISIO N VICTOR RANDOLPH TURNER,JR., Petitioner, V S. CIVIL ACTION NO.11-09-3562 RICK THALER, R espondent. M EM O R AN D UM A ND O PIN IO N Thepetitioner,V ictorR andolph Tum er,J<., aTexasstateinm ate,seekshabeascom usrelief under28U.S.C.j2254.Tum erchallengesadisciplinaryconvictionattheW ynneUnitoftheTexas DepartmentofCdminalJustice-CorrectionalInstitutionsDivisionIECTDCJ-Cm ''I.Therespondent filed amotion forsummaryjudgment,(DocketEntryNo.9).1 Tumerfiled aresponse. (Docket EntryNo.11).2Basedoncarefulconsiderationofthepleadings,themotionandresponse, therecord, andtheapplicablelaw ,thiscourtgrantstherespondent'smotion and, by separateorder,entersfinal judpnent.Thereasonsareexplainedbelow. Background On Septem ber18,2009,prisonofficialsattheW ynneUnitconductedadisciplinaryhearing in casenumber20100016184.Thehearing officerfound Tum erguilty ofrefusingtoobey orders, Turner v. Thaler Doc. 14 Insupportofhismotion forsummaryjudgment,respondentprovidesthefollowingdocuments: (A)TDCJ-CD computerrecordsconcem ingTurner'sconviction;(B)AffidavitofKathleenKoger-Burson with prison disciplinary recordsforCaseNumber20100016184;(C)AffidavitofSandraK.M urphy with Tumer'sgrievancerecordsregardingthedisciplinaryhearing;and(D)anaudiotaperecordingofthehearing in disciplinary case20100016184.(DocketEntryNos.10& 13). 2 Turneralso filed acopy ofthisresponse in CivilA ction Number4:09-401l. P;ïC:tSFbRpdsaner-habeasszoogsog-3562.b02.w11 Dockets.Justia.com aLevel2,Code24.0violation,and lyingto astaffm ember,aLevel3, Code33violation.(Docket Entry N o.10,Respondent's M otion for Sum m ary Judgm ent, Ex.B,p.2).Tumer'spunishment consistedofalossofcom missaryprivilegesfor45 days;cellrestriction for45days;areduction in good-tim eearning classstatusfrom Line2 to Line3' ,and a lossof30 daysof good-time credits. ThesummaryjudgmentevidenceshowsthatonSeptember15,2009,OfficerGarzacharged Tumerwithrefttsingtoobeyordersandlyingtoastaffmember.(DocketEntryNo.9,Respondent's M otion forSum m ary Judgm entin CivilActionN um ber4:09-3562, Ex.A,p.1).Theoffensereport stated thatOftk er Garza approached Tum erto inquire why he was cutting in the shower line. Tum ertoldOfficerGarzathathew astryingtoretrieveabagoftoiletpaper, soap,and razorsforthe (23cellblock. OfficerGarzatold Turnerthathewasnotto showerandthathew astoretrievethe m entioned item s and leave the show er area. Turnerdisobeyed the orderto leave. The record also showed thatalthough Turnertold O ftk erGarzathathew asin theshow erlineto retrieveitem sfrom thelaundryofficer,nottojumpaheadofotherswaitinginlineforashower,hewaspreparingtotake a show er. Turnerreceived notitk ation ofthe charges on Septem ber 16, 2009at12230p. m.(1d.at1). Counselsubstitutewasappointed to representTurnerbecausehiseducationalaptitudewasbelow 5.0. The counselsubstitute,D .Curtis,interviewed Turneron September 16, 2009. Turner told Curtisthathe wasnotguilty,thathehad told Oftk erGarzathe tnlth, and thatthe laundry boss, Oftk erRagston,had ordered him to go take ashower. Captain Pinney conducted the disciplinary hearing on Septem ber 18, 2009. (Id.at1). Counselsubstituterepresented Ttuneratthehearing. Turnerw asrem oved f' rom thehearingbecause he w asuncooperative. In finding Tunw rguilty ofthe charged offense, Captain Pinney considered P: ïC:kSE5RPHpaner-hab:asï2009ï09-3562. b02wpd . 2 the officer'sreportand thelivetestim ony ofthe charging officer. Captain Pinney stated thathe im posed the punishm entto serve as a deterrent. (fJ.at1).Turnercouldnotsi> thedisciplinary hearing reportto acknowledgethathehadreceived acopy ofthe finalreportbecausehehadbeen rem oved from the hearing. On September18,2009,Turnersubm itted a Step 1 grievanceinitiating grievancenum ber 2010011596.(DocketEntryNo.10,DisciplinaryGrievanceRecord,pp.3-4. ,DocketEntryNo.1, FederalPetition,Ex.1,p.2).Inthisgrievance,Tum ercomplainedthatOftkerGarzachargedhim with afalse disciplinary case in the showerarea. Grievance num ber2010011596 w asretum ed on thesame datebecausetheissue presented wasnotgrievable. (DocketEntryNo.10,Disciplinary GrievanceRecord,p.4). On Septem ber24,2009,Ttlm ersubm itted aStep 2 grievance. (DocketEntryNo.1,Federal Petition,Ex.2,p.1).TumercomplainedOfficerGarzahadfalsifiedrecordsandfailedtoinvestigate relevantfads.Though Turnerdidnotinclude agrievancenumber, the contentshow sthatitrelates togrievancenumber2010011596.lnan interofficecom munication dated October15, 2009,ptison officialsadvisedTum erthathecouldnotfileaStep 2Grievanceon grievancenum ber2010011596 becauseithad been retum edto him unprocessed. (1d.at1). Also on September 18,2009,Turner filed another Step 1 grievance initiating grievance ntlmber2010011601.(DocketEntryNo.lo,DisciplinaryGrievanceRecord,pp.1-2).There,Turner complained that OfficerFlowers falsely accused Turnerofstomping outof the classroom and slam m ingthedoor.H eargued thatprison regulationsrequire em ployeestom aketluthfulstatem ents. Grievancenumber2010011601wasrettumed on September18, 2009,because the issuepresented wasnotgrievable.(1d.at2). P: hC:tSFlApdspner -habeash zooghog-3562. *2.+ 3 Turnerm adesom em inoralterationstogrievancenumber2010011596 andresubmittediton October20,2009.(DocketEntryNo.1,FederalPetition,Ex.1,p.3).ThissecondStep 1grievance, docketedasA evr cenumberzoloo3ogsg,wasretumedonOctoberzo,zoogbecausethegrievance timeperiodhadexpired.(Id.j. On Novem ber 4, 2009, Turner subm itted a Step 2 grievance in grievance number 2010012689.3 Inthisgrievance,Tum ercomplainedofbeingrem ovedfrom thedisciplinaryhearing. H e also com plained thatthe hearing officerused profanity during the hearing. This grievancew as denied on N ovem ber 17,2009. Prison officials explained thatinvestigation yielded no supportfor Turner's allegations ofstaffm isconduct. (Id.at5-6). On October30,2009,thiscourtreceived Turner'sfederalpetition. Turnerclaim sthatheis entitled to habeasreliefon the follow ing grounds: (1) theunitgrievanceinvestigatorviolatedhisdueprocessrightsbyfailingtoreview his Step 1 grievance and inquire about the facts necessary to make a professional judgment; (2) theunitgrievanceofficerviolated hisdueprocessrightsbyfailing to retum hisStep 1grievancein atimelym anner,therebypreventing him from appealing further;and (3) anunidentifiedprison officialfalsifiedinformation intheStep 1grievance . (DocketEntryNo.1,PetitionforW ritofHabeasCorpus,p.7). N either Turner nor the respondentprovided the courtwith a copy of a Step 1 grievance for grievancenumber2010012689. P:ï f:tSFixpdsaner-habeasï2009ï093562. b02.w:d 4 Therespondentmovesforsummaryjudgmenton thegroundthatTum erfailedtoexhaust adm inistrativerem edies.Altem atively,therespondentarguesthatTurner'sclaim sareconclusory, and that,to theextentthey areactually civilrightsclaim snotproperlybeforethecourt. lI. T heIssue ofExhaustion A state prisonermustexhaustavailable statecourtremediesbefore he can obtain federal habeascop usreliefunlesstherearecircum stancesthatm akethestatecorrectiveprocessineffective to protecttheprisoner'srights. See Fisherv.Texas,169 F.3d295,302(5thCir.1999))Whitehead v.Johnson,157F.3d384,387(5thCir.1998);Picardv.Connor,404U.S.270,275-76(1971).28 U.S.C.j2254*)and(c)provideinpa14asfollows: (b)Anapplicationforawritofhabeascorpusonbehalfofa person incustodypursuanttothejudgmentofaStatecourtshallnot begrantedunlessitappearsthat(A) theapplicanthasexhaustedthe remediesavailablein thecourtsoftheState;or(B) (i) thereisan absenceofavailablestatecorrectiveprocess;or(ii) circumstances existthatrender such process ineffective to protectthe rights ofthe applicant. (c)An applicantshallnotbedeemedtohaveexhaustedthe rem ediesavailablein the courtsofthe State,within the m eaning of thissection,ifhehastherightunderthe1aw oftheStateto raise, by any availableprocedure,thequestionpresented. To exhaust,apetitionerm ustû&fairlypresent''allofhisclaim stothestatecourt. Id.;D uncan v.Henry,513U.S.364,365(1995). Fullexhaustion ofa11claimspresented isrequiredbefore federal habeas corpus relief is available. Rose v.Lundy,455 U.S.509,518-22 (1982). The exhaustion requirem entisnotsatisfied ifthe prisonerpresentsnew legaltheories orfactualclaim s in hisfederalhabeaspetition.Noblesv. Johnson,127F. 3d409,419-20(5thCir.1997),cert.denied, 523U.S.1139(1998)(citingAndersonv.Harless,459U.S.4,6-7(1982:. P; ïC:tSE:Ap:soner-habeasï2009ï093562. K2.w# 5 A claim isnotexhausted unlessthehabeaspetitionerprovidesthehigheststate courtwith a Esfair opportunity to passupon the claim ,''which in turn requiresthatthepetitionerçç presenthis claim sbefore the state courts in a procedurally proper m nnner according to the rules ofthe state courts.'' M ercadelv.Cain,179 F.3d271,275(5thCir.1999)(quotingDupuy v.Butler,837F.2d 699,702 (5thCir.1988)). A federalcourtm ay raise on itsown a petitioner's failure to exhauststate 1aw rem edies and apply thatdoctrine to bar federallitigation ofpetitioner's claim s untilexhaustion is complete. M agouirkv.Phillips,144F.3d 348,357(5th Cir.1998)(citingGraham v.Johnson, 94 F.3d 958, 970(5thCir.1996)).A federalcourtshoulddismissastateprisoner'sfederalhabeaspetitionifthe prisonerhasnotexhausted available state rem ediesasto any ofhis federalclaim s. Colem an v. Thompson,501U.S.722,731(1991). Texas state courts w ill not entertain habeas corpus challenges to prison disciplinary proceedings.Expartepalomo,759 S.W .2d671, 674(Tex.Crim.App.1988).Accordingly,a' rexas prisoner seeking to challenge the outcom e of a prison disciplinary hearing in habeas corpus proceedingsneed exhaustonly prison grievanceprocedures. SeeGartrellv.Gaylor,981F.2d254, 258n.3(5thCir.1993);Btlxterv.Estelle,614F.2d1030,1031-32(5thCir.3980);Lermav Estelle, . 585 F.2d 1297,1298 (5th Cir.1978). ln prison disciplinmy cases,inmatesexhausttheirstate remediesforthepuposesofj2254bypursuingtheTDCJ-CID'Sinternalgrievanceprocedures See . Fullerv.Rich,11F.3d61,62(5thCir.1994). The Texas Department of CriminalJustice Offender Orientation Handbook provides a two-step procedure for presenting adm inistrative grievances. Richbourg v.H orton,2008 W L 5068680(5thCir.2008).Step 1requirestheprisonertosubmitanadministrativegrievanceatthe P;!C:kSF3Ap;&onrr-:abe*sà2009î 093562. *2.+ 6 institutionallevelwithin fifteen daysoftheincidbnt.See Wendellv Asher,162F.3d887,891(5th . Cir.1998)(ovem zledbyimplication on othergroundsbyJonesv.Bock,549U.S.199,127 S Ct. . 910,920-21(2007)). Step 2 permitstheprisonerto submitan appealtothedivision grievance investigationw ith the TD CJ.f#.G enerally,prison regulationsperm itonly onegrievanceto befiled every seven daysand only one issue to be raised in each grievance. Althoughthependinghabeascorpuspetitionattacksaprisondisciplinaryconviction andnot astatecourtjudgment,theexhaustionrequirementin 28U.S.C.j2254(b)applieswhenaprisoner isrequiredtopursuetheadm inistrativegrievanceprocess, See,e.g.,K im brellv.Cockrell, 311F.3d 361,364 (5thCir.2002)(holdingthatttthetimelypendencyofprison grievanceprocedures''tolls thestatuteoflim itationsforhabeascorpuspetitionsfoundin 28U .S.C.j22444d)becauseprisoners arerequiredtopursueadministrativeremedies);Foleyv.Cockrell,222F.Supp.zd 826,829(N D . . Tex.2002)(holdingthat,Etgblecauseexhaustionofadministrativegrievanceproceduresisrequired, Petitionerisentitledto equitabletolling ofthestatuteoflimitationsuntilthedatethathecompleted theTDCJadministrativereview process'). Ofthethree claimsTurnerpresented in hisfederalpetition, he only raised his challenge to thefalsification ofrecords,claim tllree,in hisStep 1grievance. Thisglievancewasreturned once becauseitpresented nongrievable issuesa second time becausethegrievableperiod had expired. Though Turnertried to fileaStep 2 grievance, prison officialsadvised him thathecouldnotdoso becausehisStep 1grievancehadbeen retum edunprocessed. Turnerdid notpresenteitherhis first and second groundsinboth hisStep Oneand Step Two grievances. A prisoner m ust com plete both steps of the grievance process to satisfy the exhaustion requirem ent.Johnson v.Johnson, 385F. 3d503,515(5thCir.2004).Tum erfailedtopresenteach P:ïC:kSFlApHpaner-habeasïzoogïog-3562.*2.w/ ofhisgroundsforfederalhabeasreliefinboth hisStep 1andStep 2grievances. Tum er'sclaim sare unexhausted.Astherespondentnotes,itw ouldbefm ileforTtu-nertofileadditionalgrievancesto tryto exhausthisprison adm inistrativerem ediesatthislatedate. (DocketEntryNo.9,Respondent's M otion forSummaryJudgment,p.9). BecauseTunwrhasfailed to argue orestablish thatan exception applies,hisunexhausted claim s,grounds 1, 2,and 3,m ustbe dism issed asbarred under the doctrine ofproceduraldefault.SeeJohnson v. Cain,215F.3d489,494(5thCir.2000). Altem atively,thecourttindsthatTum er'sgroundsforhabeasreliefareentirelyconclusory. In Rossv.Estelle,694 F.2d 1008,1011 (5th Cir.1983),theFiûh Circuitheld thatconclusory allegationsarean inadequatebasisforfederalhabeasrelief, statingthatççgalbsentevidencein the record,acourtcrmnotconsiderahabeaspetitioner'sbald assertionson acriticalissuein hisprose petition (in stateandfederalcourt),unsupportedand unsupportablebyanythingelsecontainedin therecord,to be ofprobativeevidentiaryvalue.''Id. Tunw r isnotentitled to habeasreliefon the claim she raisesin this case. 111. The C ivilRights C laim Federalcourtshavejurisdiction to entertain awritofhabeascorpusin behalfofastate prisonerççonly on the ground thathe is in custody in violation ofthe Constitution orlaw sortreaties oftheunitedStates.''28U.S.C.j2254.A habeaspetitionisthepropervehicletoseekreleasefrom custody, not to challenge the conditions of confinem ent or prison procedures. See Carson v. Johnson,112F.3d818,820(5thCir.1997);seePughv.Parishofst.Tammany,875F.2d436,439 (5th Cir.1989).Suitsbroughtunder42U.S.C.j 1983arethepropervehicleto attackconditions ofconfinem entandprison procedures. SeeCarson,112F.3dat820* ,Cookv.Tex.Dep 'tofcriminal JusticeTransitionalplanningDep 't,37F.3d166,168(5thCir.1994).lfapetitioncombineshabe% P: ïCAS&p:*œr.H*%ï> ïX-3562. K2.w# 8 claimswith j 1983claims,andtheclaimscanbeseparatelytreated,federalcourtsshoulddo so. Seriov.M embersoflm.StateBd.ofpardons,821F.2d 1112,1119 (5thCir.1987). Tum erallegesthathisdueprocessrightswereviolatedbytheprison'spievanceprocedures. Turner'sdueprocessclaim fails.CW pdsonerhasalibertyinterestonly in freedomsfrom restraint imposing atypicaland significanthardship on the inm ate in relation to the ordinary incidentsof prisonlife.''Gcfgcrv.Jowers,404F.3d371,373-74(5thCir.2005)(internalcitationandquotation omitted).Aninmatedoesnothaveaconstitutionallyprotectedlibertyinterestinhavinggrievances resolved to hissatisfaction. There isno dueprocessviolation when prison oftk ialsfailto do so. Geigerv.Jowers,404F.3d371,373-74(5thCir.2005). ,seealsoEdmondv.M artin,etal.,slipop. no.95-60666(5th Cir.,Oct.2,1996)(unpublished)(prisoner'sclaim thatadefendantEçfailed to investigateanddeniedhisgrievance''raisesnoconstitutionalissuel;Thomasv.fensing,etal.,slip op.no.01-30658(5th Cir.,Dec.11,2001)(unpublished)(same).BecauseTumerhasno liberty interestin theresolution ofhis gdevances,theprison officials'alleged failure to investigate and addressTurner'sgrievancesdidnotviolate aconstitutionalright. H isdueprocessclaim isdism issed withprejudiceunder28U.S.C.j1915(e)(2)(B)(i). lV. C onclusion Therespondent'smotionforsummaryjudr ent,(DocketEntryNo,9),isgranted.Turner's petition fora writofhabeascorpusisdenied. This case is dism issed. A ny rem aining pending m otionsaredenied asmoot. TheSuprem eCourthasstated thattheshowing necessary foracertificateofappealability isa substantialshow ing ofthedenialofaconstitutionalright. Hernandezv.Johnson,213F.3d243, 248(5thCir.2000)(citingSlackv.McDaniel,529U.S.473,483-84(2000:.Underthatstandard, P: hCAS&p:xœr -%Y%h 2M!A-3562. K2.w# 9 anapplicantm akesasubstantialshowingwhenhedem onstratesthathisapplicationinvolvesissues thataredebatableamongjuristsofreason,thatanothercourtcouldresolvetheissuesdifferently,or that the issues are suitable enough to deserve encouragem ent to proceed further. See Clark v. Johnson,202 F.3d 760,763 (5th Cir.2000). ThiscourtdeniesTurner'spetition aftercareful consideration of the m erits of his constitutional claim s. This court denies a certificate of appealabilitybecauseTunwrhasnotm ade thenecessary showing forissuance. SIGNED on Decem ber14,2010,atHouston,Texas. Lee H .Rosenthal United StatesDistrictJudge P:ïC:tSESApdpaner-h2b:asï2009ï09-3562.b02. w% 10
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
