Finley, Jaicourrie Dewayne, WR-69,731-07

Petitioner Jaicourrie DeWayne Finley (TDCJ-CID No. 1354674) filed pro se habeas petitions challenging prison disciplinary proceedings that allegedly resulted in loss of good-time credits and affected release eligibility.
Two separate petitions alleged different disciplinary convictions and credit losses (150 days in one matter; 120 days in another) with specific case numbers provided by Finley.
Respondent moved to dismiss, arguing no actual disciplinary cases existed matching Finley’s descriptions or case numbers.
The magistrate judge found the alleged offenses (e.g., “bearing false witness,” “activating [the] First Amendment”) are not recognized TDCJ-CID disciplinary offenses and the supplied case numbers are invalid under TDCJ’s numeric system.
The magistrate recommended dismissal for lack of an actual case or controversy and for apparent fabrication; the district judge adopted the recommendation and dismissed the petitions and denied a certificate of appealability.
The court warned Finley that filing future habeas petitions based on fabricated disciplinary cases could trigger sanctions, including pre-filing monetary requirements or filing restrictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an actual disciplinary proceeding exists that Finley can challenge	Finley asserts he was found guilty in specified disciplinary cases and lost good-time credits	TDCJ shows no corresponding disciplinary records; alleged offenses not in TDCJ offense list; provided case numbers invalid	No actual disciplinary case found; petition dismissed
Whether pro se latitude protects pleading fabricated claims	Finley presents factual allegations without counsel	Respondent contends allegations are false and amount to abuse of the writ	Court held pro se status doesn’t permit abusive or fabricated habeas petitions; dismissal warranted
Whether dismissal is appropriate for lack of case-or-controversy	Finley claims injury from disciplinary loss of credits	Respondent argues absence of real disciplinary action means no live controversy	Dismissal for lack of an actual case or controversy granted
Whether to issue certificate of appealability	Finley did not demonstrate a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right	Respondent urged denial based on petition lacking merit and factual basis	COA denied

Cook v. Hanberry, 592 F.2d 248 (5th Cir. 1979) (federal actions require an actual controversy at all stages)
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) (procedural protections for prisoners in disciplinary proceedings)
McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467 (1991) (courts need not tolerate clearly abusive habeas petitions)
Rose v. Lundy, 455 U.S. 509 (1982) (federal courts should not entertain collateral proceedings aimed to vex or delay)
Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (failure to timely object to magistrate findings bars appellate attack except for plain error)
Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 F.2d 275 (5th Cir. 1988) (procedural rules for objections to magistrate recommendations)
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) (procedures for assessing pro se prisoner claims and appointment of counsel)