IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AMARILLO DIVISION

STEPHEN WALKER, §

§

Plaintiff, §

§

v. § 2:22-CV-176-Z-BR

§

DAVID GUTIERREZ, et al., §

§

Defendants. §

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION TO DENY

MOTION TO DISMISS

Before the undersigned is a Motion to Dismiss filed by Defendants. (ECF 32). Having 

considered the arguments of Defendants, Plaintiff’s objections, which the undersigned construes 

as his response, and for the reasons that follow, it is the recommendation of the undersigned United 

States Magistrate Judge to the United States District Judge that the Motion be GRANTED. 

Defendants David Gutierrez and James LaFavers are members of the Texas Board of 

Pardons and Paroles, against whom Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief challenging denial of parole. 

(ECF 3). They contend Plaintiff does not have a liberty interest in parole and his allegations are 

insufficient to entitle him to any relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF 32 at 3). 

Texas prisoners have no protected liberty interest in parole. Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 

299, 308 (5th Cir. 1997). Accordingly, they cannot mount a challenge to any state parole review 

procedure on due process grounds. Id. In other words, when a prisoner has no liberty interest in 

the outcome, he cannot complain of the procedural devices used to get there. Wansley v. Miss. 

Dept. of Corrections, 769 F.3d 309, 312–13 (5th Cir. 2014). 

Case 2:22-cv-00176-Z-BR Document 34 Filed 06/02/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 142
Plaintiff acknowledges in his response that he has no right to parole, (ECF 33 at 2), but the 

Fifth Circuit is clear that the lack of a liberty interest in the outcome is fatal to an interest in the 

process. Parole is a discretionary matter for Texas state authorities, so Plaintiff has no cognizable 

interest in the process they use to arrive at their decision. Because the Complaint rests exclusively 

on this rejected argument, the case must fail. 

RECOMMENDATION

It is the recommendation of the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge to the United 

States District Judge that the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF 32), be granted. 

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

The United States District Clerk is directed to send a copy of these Findings, Conclusions 

and Recommendation to each party by the most efficient means available.

IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. 

ENTERED June 2, 2023.

* NOTICE OF RIGHT TO OBJECT *

Any party may object to these proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. In 

the event parties wish to object, they are hereby NOTIFIED that the deadline for filing objections 

is fourteen (14) days from the date of filing as indicated by the “entered” date directly above the 

signature line. Service is complete upon mailing, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(C), or transmission by 

electronic means, Fed. R. Civ. P. 5(b)(2)(E). Any objections must be filed on or before the 

fourteenth (14th) day after this recommendation is filed as indicated by the “entered” date. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d).

Any such objections shall be made in a written pleading entitled “Objections to the 

Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation.” Objecting parties shall file the written objections 

with the United States District Clerk and serve a copy of such objections on all other parties. A 

party’s failure to timely file written objections shall bar an aggrieved party, except upon grounds 

of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings, legal 

conclusions, and recommendation set forth by the Magistrate Judge and accepted by the district 

court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (5th Cir. 1996) (en 

banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), as recognized in ACS 

Case 2:22-cv-00176-Z-BR Document 34 Filed 06/02/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 143
Recovery Servs., Inc. v. Griffin, 676 F.3d 512, 521 n.5 (5th Cir. 2012); Rodriguez v. Bowen, 857 

F.2d 275, 276-77 (5th Cir. 1988).

Case 2:22-cv-00176-Z-BR Document 34 Filed 06/02/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 144