United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS March 1, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-11049
Summary Calendar
RENE R. BELASCO,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH BIDDEN; BUREAU OF PRISONS; JOHN/JANE DOE,
Respondents-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:03-CV-165
--------------------
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Petitioner-Appellant Rene R. Belasco (Belasco), federal
prisoner no. 15787-053, is serving a 216-month sentence for a drug-
trafficking conspiracy. Belasco filed suit under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
complaining that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) is calculating his
good-time credits in a manner contrary to 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b) and
thus depriving him of earned good-time credits without due process
of law.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
The district court dismissed Belasco’s complaint sua sponte on
grounds that Belasco has no constitutionally protected right to
good-time credits. We review the district court’s decision de
novo. See Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1997).
Although there is no intrinsic constitutional right to good
time credit, when the government creates such a right, a prisoner’s
interest in good time falls within the Fourteenth Amendment’s
liberty concerns. See id. at 768. We have yet to determine
whether a federal statute creates a constitutionally protected
interest in good-time credits. See 18 U.S.C. § 3624(b); see also
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974) (addressing state
statute); Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th
Cir. 2000) (assuming without deciding). If there is a
constitutional interest, Belasco’s claim would be properly raised
in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas proceeding. See Davis v. Fechtel, 150
F.3d 486, 490 (5th Cir. 1998); United States v. Cleto 956 F.2d 83,
84 (5th Cir. 1992).
Here, however, the factual record is undeveloped, particularly
with regard to the time Belasco has served and the good-time for
which he has been credited. In addition, the BOP has not had an
opportunity to clarify, for the record, its methods of calculating
good-time in general or Belasco’s good-time credit in particular.
Consequently, the record on appeal is inadequate for us to conduct
a meaningful appellate review. Accordingly, we vacate the judgment
of the district court and remand the case to that court for further
2
development of the record. See Madison, 104 F.3d at 769 (vacating
and remanding).
Belasco has filed a motion for appointment of counsel and for
consolidation of this case with another case, which he asserts is
pending in the Northern District of Texas. These and any other
outstanding motions are denied.
JUDGMENT VACATED AND REMANDED; ALL MOTIONS DENIED.
3