No. 99-40197
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40197
Summary Calendar
DARNELL JOHNSON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:98-CV-279
--------------------
March 21, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Darnell Johnson, Texas inmate #265926, appeals the district
court’s dismissal as successive of his petition for a writ of
habeas corpus. Johnson’s motions for leave to supplement the
record, an expedited ruling, an evidentiary hearing, and for
appointment of counsel are DENIED.
Johnson’s petition challenged a 1998 parole proceeding that
resulted in the denial of his release on parole. Johnson’s
petition did not challenge his conviction, sentence, or parole
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 99-40197
-2-
revocation, which formed the basis for his prior petitions, and
his claims were not or could not have been raised in an earlier
petition. See In re Cain, 137 F.3d 234, 235 (5th Cir. 1998).
Accordingly, the petition was not successive, and Johnson did not
require authorization to file the petition.
Johnson’s allegations, however, do not implicate the
violation of a constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a);
Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir. 1995)(federal habeas
relief cannot be had absent allegation of deprivation of some
right secured by United States Constitution or laws of United
States).
Texas law does not create a liberty interest in parole, and
Texas prisoners have no constitutional expectancy of release on
parole. Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997);
Orellana, 65 F.3d at 31. Johnson’s allegations of cruel and
unusual punishment also do not establish the violation of a
constitutional right. Woods v. Edwards, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th
Cir. 1995) (prisoner must show that he was deprived of the
minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities or some basic
human need). The disciplinary action of which Johnson complains
does not implicate his freedom from restraint, nor does it
implicate a protected liberty interest under the Due Process
Clause. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-85 (1995)
(discipline by prison officials in response to a wide range of
conduct falls within the expected perimeters of the sentence
imposed by a court of law).
No. 99-40197
-3-
Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED
on alternate grounds. See Emery v. Johnson, 139 F.3d 191, 195
(5th Cir. 1997) (this court may affirm the district court’s
denial of habeas relief on any grounds supported by the record),
cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 418 (1998).
AFFIRMED; MOTIONS DENIED.