FI LED U. S . COURT OF AP PE ALS E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT A ugus t 31, 2005 T HOM AS K. KAHN CL E RK [ DO NO T P UB L I S H] I N THE UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS F O R T H E E L E V E N T H C IR C U IT

________________________ N o. 05- 11541 N on -A rgum entC al endar

________________________ D . C . D ocketN o. 04 -021 28 -C V -C A M -1 J I M M Y R O G E R S , P la in tif f - A p p e lla n t, v ersu s M I L T O N N I X , B E T T Y C O O K , G A R F I E L D H A M M O N D S , E U G E N E W A L K E R , M I C H A E L L I G H T , D e f e n d a n ts - A p p e lle e s .

________________________ A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e N o rth e rn D is tr ic t o f G e o r g ia

_________________________ ( A ugus t31, 2005) B efo re T JO F L A T , D U B IN A an d K R A V IT C H , C i rcu i tJu d g es.Although thedistrict court did not addre ss the specificclaims ag ainst the Boa rd 1 members in their of

ficial c apac ities, such claims arebarred. W ill v. Mich. De

p’t of State Police , 491 U.S. 58, 71 (1989). 2 P E R C U R I A M: J im m y R o g e r s , aG e o r g iap r is o n e rp r o c e e d in g p r o s e , ap p e a ls th e d is m is s a l, p u r s u a n t to th e P r is o n L itig a tio n R e f o rm A c t, o f

h is d u e p r o c e s s a n d e x p o s t f a c to c l a i m s i n thi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 a c t i on. W e a f f i rm the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s de c i s i on f or th e r e a s o n s s e tf

o rth b e l o w. I. R o g ers fi l ed a p ro se ci v i l ri g h t s co m p l ai n tu n d er 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 ag ai n st G e or gi aS t a t e B oa r d of

P ar dons a nd P a r ol e s m e m be r s M i l t on N i x, B e tty C ook, G a r f i e l d H a m m onds , E uge ne W a l ke r , a nd M i c ha e l L i ght( c ol l e c t i ve l y , the

“ B oard”) i n thei r i nd i vi du al and o ff i ci al capaci t i es . R og er s a l l eged thatthe B oard 1 vi ol at ed hi s due proces s r i gh t s bec ause he had a l i berty i nt er es ti n p ar ol e, the B oard u s e d f a ls e in f o rm a tio n to d e n y h is p a r o le , a n d th e B o a r d ig n o r e d h is a tte m p ts to ap p e a l th e Bo a r d ’ s d e c i s i o n . Ro g e r s a l s o a l l e g e d th a tth e Bo a r d v i o l a t e d th e Ex P os tF a c t o C l aus e by r e l y i ng on pol i c i e s e na c t e d a f t e rhi s c onvi c t i on t o de ny parol e. T he di stri ctcourtsc re ened the ca se pu rs uantt o the P ri son L i t i gat i on R ef orm A c t, 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A , a n d d is m is s e d th e c o m p la in t f o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im .Be causeRogers raises this iss ue for the first time on appe al, this court nee d not consider 2 it. See Narey

v. Dean , 32 F.3d 1521, 1526- 27 (11th Cir. 1994) (holdingthat arguments raised for the f irst time on appeal a

re not c onsidered by

this court absent oneof five ex ceptions not relevant here). 3 T h e d i stri ctco u rtfo u n d th atth ere w as n o ev i d en ce th atth e B o ard rel i ed o n fal se i nform at i on and thatR og er s had no ti dent i fi ed a new po l i cythathad b ee n app l i ed re troac t i vel y t o h i m or expl ai ned w hy he fa ce d a si gn i fi cantri sk of i ncre as ed p u n is h m e n t. R o g ers th en m o v edt o am en d th e co u rto rd er, assert i n g th ath i s p ro se c om pl a i ntw a s e nt i t l e d t o l i be r a l c ons truc t i on. T he c ourtde ni e d the m ot i on, not i ng thatthere w as no l i berty i nt er es ti n p ar ol e and thatthere w as no evi dence that R o g ers faced a l en g th i er sen t en ce. R o g ers ap p eal ed th e d i stri ctco u rt ’ s d eci si o n s, a n d n o w a ls o a r g u e s th a t th e d e f e n d a n ts w e r e in d e f

au lt in th e d is tr ic t c o u rt. 2 II . T h is c o u rt r e v ie w s d e n o v o as u as p o n te d is m is s a l u n d e r2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 A ( b ) f

o rf a ilu r e to s ta te ac la im . L ea l v. G a . D ep ’t

o f C o rr. , 254 F . 3d 1276, 12 79 (11th C i r. 20 01 ). A . D ue P r oc e s s C l aus e of the F ourt e e nth A m e ndm e nt R o g e r s ’s d u e p r o c e s s c la im s a r e f o r e c lo s e d b y th is c o u rt’s d e c is io n in Sul te nf us s v . Snow , 35 F . 3d 14 94 (11th C i r. 19 94 ) ( en banc), i n w hi ch w e hel d that aG e o r g iain m a te h a s n o lib e rtyin te r e s t in p a r o le . E s tab lis h m e n t o f ap a r o le4

s y s te m d o e s n o t au to m a tic a llyc r e a te alib e rtyin te r e s t in p a r o le , b u t in s te a d “[ o ]n ly w he n as t a t e m a i nt a i ns apa r ol e s y s t e m tha tc r e a t e s al e gi t i m a t e e xpe c t a t i on of pa r ol e doe s i t[ a l s o] e s t abl i s h al i be rty i nt e r e s ti n pa r ol e tha ti s s ubj e c tt o the prot ec t i on s of the D ue P roce ss C l ause . ” J one s v . R ay , 27 9 F . 3d 94 4, 94 6 (11 th C i r. 2 0 0 1 ) . Su l ten

f u ss w a s c l e a ri n i t s s t a t e m e nttha tG e or gi a ’ s pa r ol e s y s t e m di d not c r e a t e s uc h a n e xpe c t a t i on. T o the e xt e nttha tR oge r s c ha l l e nge s the const i tut i on al i ty of Su l ten f u ss , he r a i s e s thi s i s s ue f orthe f i r s tt i m e on appe a l , a nd th e r e f o r e , th is c o u rt n e e d n o t c o n s id e rit. N ar e yv . D e an , 32 F . 3d 1521, 1526- 27 (11th C i r. 19 94 ). F urther, “ i tal so i s w el l -s ett l ed thatthere i s no feder al const i tut i on al ri gh tt o p ar ol e. ” Jones , 279 F . 3d a t946 ( c i t i ng G re enho l t z v . Inm at es of

N eb. P enal& Corr. C om

pl ex , 44 2 U . S . 1, 7 (19 79 )) . In the abse nce of a l i be rty i nt e r e s ti n pa r ol e , R oge r s i s note nt i t l e d t o the pr ot e c t i ons a f f or de d by the D ue P roce ss C l ause . S i m i l arl y, R o g ers’ s cl ai m reg ard i n g th e B o ard ’ s al l eg ed u se o f fal se i n fo rm at i o n al so fai l s. A l th o u g h th i s co u rth as h el dth at“ th e u se o f fal se i nform at i on i n a parol e f i l e c an be a due process vi ol at i on , pri soners cann otm ake a c onc l us ory a l l e ga t i on r e ga r di ng the us e of s uc h i nf orm a t i on a s the ba s i s of adue proces s c l ai m . ” I

d. ( c i t i ng Mon roe v . T

higp en , 93 2 F . 2d 14 37 , 14 42 (11th C i r. 1 9 9 1 ) ) . I n s h o rt, w ith o u t e v id e n c e o f th e B o a r d ’s r e lia n c e o n f a ls e in f o rm a tio n , a5

pr i s one rc a nnots uc c e e d. H e r e , R oge r s f a i l e d t o pr of

f e ra ny e vi de nc e of

the B oard’ s r el i ance on fa l se i nform at i on t o res ci nd hi s par ol e, and h i s c on cl usory a lle g a tio n th a t it m u s t h a v e a t le a s t ig n o r e d tru e in f o rm a tio n is in s u f

f ic ie n t. R oge r s ’ s s ubm i s s i on of e vi de nc e tha the a l r e a dy c om pl e t e d s om e of the p reco n d i t i o n s setfo r h i s rel ease d o es n o th i n g t o sh o w th atth e B o ard rel i ed o n fal se i nform at i on i n the course of i t s dec i si on -m aki ng . A cc ordi ng l y, the di stri ctcourt p ro p erl y d et erm i n ed th atR o g ers fai l ed t o st at e a cl ai m o n th ese g ro u n d s. B . E x P o stF act o C l au se T he E x P ostF ac t o C l ause proh i bi t s ast at e f rom enac t i ng st atut es w hi ch

“ m ake m ore burdensom e the pu ni shm entfor acr i m e, af t eri t s c om m i ss i on . ” U n ite d S ta te s v . D e L a M

a ta , 2 6 6 F .3 d 1 2 7 5 , 1 2 8 6 ( 1 1 th C ir . 2 0 0 1 ) . T o p r e v a il in a n E x P o s t F a c to C lau s e c h a lle n g e c o n c e rn in g c h a n g e s in p a r o le p r o c e d u r e s , a pr i s one r“ m us ts how tha ta s appl i e d t o hi s ow n s e nt e nc e the l a w c r e a t e d a si gn i fi cantri sk of i ncre as i ng hi s pun i shm ent . ” G arner v . Jones , 529 U . S . 244, 255 ( 2 0 0 0 ) . H e r e , R o g e r s f

a ile d to id e n tif

y an e w p o lic y th a t w a s ap p lie d r e tr o a c tiv e lyto hi s c a s e . A l though pro se pl ea di ng s are ent i t l ed t o l i bera l construct i on , a pl ai nt i ff s t i l l m us ti de nt i f

y the f a c t s tha tgi ve r i s e t o the a l l e ga t i ons . R oge r s ’ s pr of f e rof the B oard’ s l ett erst at i ng on l y thathi s c as e w as re vi ew ed “ i n acc ordance w i th B oard6

p o li cy ” f ails in th at re g ar d . M o re o v er , R o g er s f ailed to ex p lain h o w th e B o ar d ’s ap p lic a tio n o f

B o a r d p o lic y c r e a te d a“s ig n if ic a n t r is ko f

in c r e a s in g h is p u n is h m e n t.” A s c o n c lu s o ry a lle g a tio n s a r e in s u f f ic ie n t to s u p p o rt ac o m p la in t, se e Ful lm an v. G radd i ck , 73 9 F . 2d 55 3, 55 6-57 (11th C i r. 19 84 ), the di stri ctcourt p r o p e r l y d i s mi s s e d th i s c l a i m. A c c or di ngl y , w e A F F I R M the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s di s m i s s a l of thi s a c t i on.