P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 50874 Su m m ar yC al endar

PA U L R G O N ZAL EZ , Pet i t i o ne r - Appe l l ant

v. LA U R AC O R T E Z , S u pervi sor, R egi on 5, T exas D epa rt m en t of C ri m i n alJu st i ce P arol e D ivis ion ; ST A C IE RAY , Su pervi sor, R egi on 5, T exas D epa rt m en tof C r i m i nalJust i c e Par ol e D ivi si on; G AYG LA SP I E , A ss i st antD i r ec t or , R egi on 5, T exas D epa rt m en t of C ri m i n al Ju st i ce P arol e D ivi si on ; JO E F L O R E S , D i rect or, Re g i o n 5 , T e x a s De p a r t m e n to f Cr i m i n a lJ u s t i c e P a r o l e Div i s i o n ; BRYAN CO LLI ER , D i r e c t o r , Te xa s D e pa r t m e nto f Cr i m i nalJ us t i c e Par o l e D ivi s i o n , R espon den t s- A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or th e W est ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 7: 07- C V

- 62

B ef ore JO N E S , C h i ef

Ju dg e, an d D E N N IS an d H AY N E S , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * P a u lR
. G on za l ez a p p ea l s th e d i sm i ssa lo f h i s 4 2 U
. S

. C

. § 19 8 3 com p l a i n t. S ee F ed. R
. C iv. P
. 12(b) ( 6)

. G on zal ez f i l ed a civi lri gh t s c om pl ai n tagainstL au ra C or t ez , St ac i e Ray, G ay G l as pi e, Joe Fl or es , and B r yan C oll i er , al lem pl oye es at United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D October 2, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 50874

2 t he r e l e va ntt i m e s o f t he T e xa s D e pa r t m e nto f Cr i m i nalJ us t i c e Par o l e D ivi s i o n. G o n z a lez a ll e g e dth a t th e d e fen d a n ts co n sp ire dto a rr a n g e fo r th e issu a n ce of a fal separ ol e v i ol at i on w ar r antagai nstG onzal ez . G onzal ez al l ege d t hatl aw e n for ce m e n t offic e r s a rr ive da t h is h o m e to e ffec tu a te th e w a rr a n t b u t left
w i th ou t exe cu ti n g it
. G on za l ez ass erte d t h a t th e incide n t vi olatedh i s l ib erty i nt er es t s and ca use d hi m ps yc hol ogi c alt r aum a. G on za l ez w a s n ot d eta i n edor a rres ted on th e w a rra n t a n dthu s fa i l edto
s h o w av io la tio n o f a c o n s tit u tio n a llyp r o te c te dlib e r tyin te r e s t. S ee Un i t ed St at e s v . Ti

ppe ns , 3 9 F. 3d 88, 9 0 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 4)

. Al t ho ughhe a l l e ge d thathe suff ered m en t alan gu i sh f rom t h e i n ci den t , h e m ay not recoverun der § 1983 f or e m o tio n a l d is tr e s s a b s e n t a v io la tio n o f h is c o n s tit u tio n a l r ig h ts
. S eeG ra n d staff
v. C i ty of

B orger, T

ex. , 7 6 7 F .2d 1 6 1 , 1 7 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 5 ). G o n z a le z a d d itio n a lly a r g u e s th a t th e d e fe n d a n ts re ta lia te da g a in s t h im
on t h e basi s of

hi s ext en sive corr espon den ce t o t h em over th e course of tw o years i n w h i ch h e t h reat en ed to su e th e d efen da n t s f or vari ou s parol e pract i ces. Go n z a l e z p r o d u c e dn o di r e c te v i d e n c e o f t h e d e fe n d a n t s ’mo t iv a t i o n s f o rt wo p ri or p a role r ev oca ti on a rres ts. H i s va gu e a n dcon cl u soryass ertion s ab ou t both t h e chrono logy of

even t s and t h e vi ol ati on charges are i n suff i ci en tt o st ate a p la u s ib le cla im th a t th e v io la tio n c h a r g e s w e r e re ta lia to r yinn a tu r e . S ee Jon es v. G reni nger , 1 8 8 F .3d 3 2 2 , 3 2 4 -2 5 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 9 ). Go n z a l e z ’ s a p p e a li s DI S M I S S ED
.