U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF J EXASSHERNDISUCT OF TEAS AMARILLO DIVISION | FEB ~ 6 2019 | STEPHEN WALKER, § TDCJ-CID No. 01018562, § CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT

Plaintiff, _ (ity }

v. 2:19-CV-078-Z LORIE DAVIS, DIRECTOR TDCJ-CID, Defendant. ;

MEMORANDUM OPINION DISMISSING CIVIL RIGHTS COMPLAINT Plaintiff STEPHEN WALKER, acting pro se and while a prisoner incarcerated in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice (“TDCJ”), Correctional Institutions Division, has filed suit

pursuant to Title

complaining against the above-referenced defendant and has been granted permission to proceed in forma pauperis. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's civil rights Complaint is DISMISSED. JUDICIAL REVIEW When a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility brings an action with respect to prison conditions under any federal law, the Court may evaluate the complaint and dismiss it without service of process, Ali v. Higgs,

(Sth Cir. 1990), if it is frivolous!, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915A, 1915(e)(2). The

1 A claim is frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or in fact. Booker v. Koonce,

(5th Cir. 1993); see also Denton v. Hernandez,

(1992).

same standards will support dismissal of a suit brought under any federal law by a prisoner confined in any jail, prison, or other correctional facility, where such suit concerns prison conditions. 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). A Spears hearing need not be conducted for every pro se complaint. Wilson v. Barrientos,

, 483 n.4 (Sth Cir. 1991). PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS By his Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant DAVIS is withholding privileges and good conduct time after his parole eligibility date. Plaintiff complains of time calculations regarding good conduct time and calendar time based on errors in interpreting Mandatory Supervision law. He also claims the Takings Clause was violated when he received a set-off during his parole review. ANALYSIS “There is no constitutional expectancy of parole in Texas.” Madison v. Parker,

(5th Cir. 1997). A delay in consideration for mandatory release does not support a constitutional claim. Malchi v. Thaler,

(5th Cir. 2000). Further, because a plaintiff has “no liberty interest in obtaining parole in Texas, he cannot complain of the constitutionality of procedural devices attendant to parole decisions.” Orellana v. Kyle,

(5th Cir. 1991). Plaintiff's claims concern the validity and duration of his confinement, which are not

proper bases for a section 1983 claim. “When a state prisoner is challenging the very fact or duration of his physical imprisonment, and the relief he seeks is a determination that he is entitled

2 Green vs. McKaskle,

(Sth Cir. 1986) (“Of course, our discussion of Spears should not be interpreted to mean that all or even most prisoner claims require or deserve a Spears hearing. A district court should be able to dismiss as frivolous a significant number of prisoner suits on the complaint alone or the complaint together with the Watson questionnaire.”).

to immediate release or a speedier release from that imprisonment, his sole federal remedy is a writ of habeas corpus.” Preiser v. Rodriguez,

(1973). In fact, Plaintiff has filed habeas claims with this Court, Case No. 2:19-CV-88, relating to these claims. Plaintiff has filed both habeas claims and civil rights claims with this Court in the past, evincing an understanding in the difference between the two claims and indicating his intent to pursue two types of relief. However, the claims asserted by Plaintiff in this lawsuit are not cognizable as civil rights claims. As there is no basis in the law for these claims in a civil rights suit, they are dismissed as frivolous. See Neitzke v. Williams,

(1989). CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above and pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, sections 1915A and 1915(e)(2), as well as Title 42, United States Code, section 1997e(a), it is ORDERED that the Civil Rights Complaint by Plaintiff filed pursuant to Title

be DISMISSED with prejudice as frivolous. It is FURTHER ORDERED that all other motions filed by Plaintiff are DENIED. SO ORDERED. February ba , 2020.

UNJTED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE