United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit ____________

No. 22-30159 

____________

Samuel Galbraith, 

Petitioner—Appellee, 

versus

Tim Hooper, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary, 

Respondent—Appellant. 

______________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:19-CV-181

______________________________

Before Stewart, Dennis, and Southwick, Circuit Judges.

Leslie H. Southwick, Circuit Judge: 

Samuel Galbraith, a Louisiana prisoner, sued the Louisiana Board of 

Pardons and Parole (“Parole Board”), seeking to have his parole reinstated 

on the grounds that its rescission just prior to its effective date violated his 

due process rights. The district court agreed with Galbraith and ordered his 

release on parole within 30 days, subject to the original conditions of his 

parole. On appeal, the Parole Board’s arguments include that there is no 

constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole. Based on Louisiana’s 

parole statutes, we hold that, on the facts of this case, a liberty interest did 

arise. We AFFIRM. 

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 23, 2023

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In February 2000, Samuel K. Galbraith pled guilty to the

manslaughter and attempted aggravated rape of Karen Hill in November 

1988. He was sentenced to 71 years at hard labor. In November 2000, James 

Hill, who is the victim’s surviving husband, completed a “Louisiana 

Department of Public Safety and Corrections Victim/Witness Notification 

Request Form.” The form required the Parole Board to notify the named 

person when a parole hearing was granted for a specified inmate. The record 

does not contain a similar form from anyone else that requested notice 

regarding Galbraith’s potential parole.

In the spring of 2016,1 Galbraith filed an Application for Parole. His 

first possible parole eligibility date was April 23, 2017. The Parole Board set 

Galbraith’s hearing for October 13, 2016, and sent notification letters on July 

7, 2016, to Hill and Jessie McWilliams, Karen Hill’s mother, advising them 

of their right to appear and present testimony at the parole hearing. 

McWilliams’s letter was erroneously addressed to a post office box in 

Albany, New York, instead of to the same-numbered post office box in 

Albany, Illinois. On September 14, 2016, Galbraith’s attorney requested a 

continuance of the October hearing until November 3, 2016, which was 

granted. The Parole Board sent notification letters to Hill and McWilliams 

on September 28, 2016, this time to their correct addresses, reflecting the 

new November hearing date. At this time, the Louisiana Administrative 

Code required notification 30 days prior to the parole hearing to be sent to

“[t]he victim, spouse, or next of kin of a deceased victim.” LA. ADMIN.

_____________________

1 Galbraith’s Application for Parole is undated; however, other documents in the 

application reflect dates of early-to-mid 2016.

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

3

CODE, tit. 22, Pt XI, § 510(B) (eff. Aug. 2013 to Mar. 2018).2 Thus, the 

Parole Board was required to give notice only to Hill as the surviving 

husband. The Parole Board did so.

A pre-parole investigation report was prepared. The report contained 

statements from Hill, McWilliams, the Vernon Parish District Attorney’s 

Office, the Vernon Parish Sheriff’s Office, and the Vernon Parish sentencing 

judge. They all opposed parole. At Galbraith’s parole hearing, a threemember panel of the Parole Board heard testimony or statements from those 

opposed to his early release. That Board also heard from Galbraith’s family 

members, who supported his parole. Galbraith was represented by counsel 

at the hearing. The Parole Board panel unanimously voted to grant parole to 

Galbraith with a scheduled release date of April 23, 2017, and with a list of 

specific conditions during his parole term. The Certificate of Parole showed 

that Galbraith would reside in Aransas Pass, Texas, and would be subject to 

the authority of a parole office in Corpus Christi, Texas.

Neither Hill nor McWilliams attended the hearing, but each provided 

a written statement or testimony. Both were contacted directly by someone 

from the Department of Corrections after the hearing and were notified of 

the decision.

After parole was granted, Vernon Parish District Attorney Asa 

Skinner filed a request for reconsideration of the parole board’s decision. He 

_____________________

2 The statute was amended in March 2018 to require 90-days’ notice and to require 

notice to any person who has filed a victim notice and registration form. See LA. ADMIN.

CODE, tit. 22, pt. XI, § 510(B) (eff. Mar. 2018 to Dec. 2018). Victim notification errors 

were not a permissible basis, at least explicitly, for rescission of parole until the statute was 

amended in August 2019. Compare LA. ADMIN. CODE, tit. 22, pt. XI, § 504(K) (eff. Jan. 

2015 to Aug. 2019), with LA.ADMIN.CODE, tit. 22, pt. XI, § 504(K) (eff. Aug. 2019 to Jan. 

2020).

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

4

sent request letters on November 15, 2016, November 30, 2016,3 and January 

9, 2017. In February 2017, the Parole Board denied Skinner’s request for 

reconsideration, explaining that “[t]he panel voted unanimously to grant 

parole . . . after serious and thorough consideration” and “[t]he board’s 

policy provides for a reconsideration review only in [limited] 

circumstances,” none of which were applicable in Galbraith’s case. Skinner 

and McWilliams aired their displeasure to the press, leading to negative 

reports that appeared in the news regarding Galbraith’s imminent parole.

In early April 2017, the Parole Board and the Department of 

Corrections made final preparations for Galbraith’s release. On April 10, 

2017, Parole Board member Mary Fuentes sent an email to the Deputy 

Executive Counsel to Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards. She referred 

to a news story regarding Galbraith’s release that would air on April 13. Her

concern was that the story could impact criminal justice legislation that was 

desired by the governor. Two days later, a single Parole Board member,

Sheryl Ranatza, added electronic monitoring as a condition of Galbraith’s 

parole. On April 20, 2017, the Parole Board received notice from Texas that 

the new condition of parole was accepted, and Ranatza signed and issued a 

Certificate of Parole with a release date of April 23, 2017. 

On April 21, 2017, an email exchange occurred between Special 

Counsel of the Louisiana Governor’s Legislative Staff and a lobbyist with 

Top Drawer Strategies, LLC. Both expressed concern about the negative 

media reports regarding Galbraith’s release and potential impact on the 

success of the pending criminal justice reform legislation. The news report 

_____________________

3 In one of the November 30 letters, Skinner attached a report by retired chief 

detective, Martin Hilton, who relayed his opinion that Galbraith may be responsible for two 

cold-case murders in Vernon Parish. Galbraith, however, was never charged with either of 

these murders, and there is no evidence in the record connecting him to those two victims.

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 4 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

5

referenced in that email exchange included details about interviews with 

McWilliams, who stated her victim notification letter was sent to the wrong 

mailing address, and with Skinner, who claimed Galbraith was responsible 

for two other cold-case murders in Vernon Parish. 

On April 21, the same day as this email exchange, Galbraith’s parole 

hearing docket record stated: “Rescind Pending Per Mary F,” i.e., board 

member Mary Fuentes. That day, a single Parole Board member, Jim Wise, 

filled in a “Parole Board Action Sheet” that rescinded Galbraith’s parole 

based on this reason: “Other [–] There may have been tech[n]ical irregularity 

to victim notice.”

Galbraith was not released. In a letter dated May 1, the Parole Board 

officially notified him of the rescission, awkwardly repeating the phrasing of 

the Parole Board Action Sheet:

This correspondence is to advise you that the Parole Board has 

voted to rescind the parole granted at your original parole 

hearing. 

This action was taken due to the following: 

We have been advised that Other. 

There may have been technical irregularities notifying the 

victim’s family. 

You will be scheduled for another hearing on 08/03/2017. 

There is no evidence that the Parole Board took any action to rescind 

parole beyond the single board member’s signature on the rescission form. 

The Parole Board later issued a press release announcing the decision to 

rescind. It explained that, even though McWilliams received notice of the 

November hearing and provided a statement for its consideration, the Board 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 5 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

6

was rescheduling the parole hearing “because of the apparent procedural 

error which occurred with the initial victim notification.”4

In May 2017, Galbraith filed an administrative grievance, which was 

rejected on the ground that the Parole Board’s decision was discretionary and 

could not be challenged. In June 2017, Galbraith’s counsel sent a letter (1) 

contesting the decision to rescind for failure to adhere to Parole Board policy,

(2) contesting the factual basis of the alleged technicality that occurred with 

the victim notice, and (3) advising the Parole Board that neither of the two 

permissible reasons for rescission of parole applied in his case. In July 2017, 

Galbraith, through counsel, withdrew from parole consideration for the 

reasons stated in his attorney’s June letter.

On July 26, 2017, counsel for Galbraith filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint in the Middle District of Louisiana challenging the Parole Board’s 

rescission of his parole. He sought reinstatement of his parole and immediate 

release from prison. A year and a half later, the Parole Board filed a motion 

for summary judgment in which it argued Galbraith’s exclusive remedy to 

seek release from custody was through a writ of habeas corpus.

On March 27, 2019, counsel for Galbraith filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

application, naming the warden of the prison as the defendant. We will refer 

to the defendant as the State since the warden was sued in his official 

capacity. Stating that it was due to the common legal issues, the district court 

stayed and administratively closed the Section 1983 proceedings pending 

resolution of the Section 2241 application. In its answer to Galbraith’s 

Section 2241 application, the State argued Galbraith failed to exhaust his 

_____________________

4 As we have already explained, the Parole Board was required to provide 30 days’ 

notice of the hearing, and timely notice was given for the November hearing. There is no 

suggestion or record that McWilliams requested notification, and she was not required to 

be notified under the statute in effect at the time. See supra n.2.

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 6 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

7

available state court remedies, his application was time-barred, and his claim 

lacked merit because the Parole Board’s rescission did not infringe any 

constitutionally protected liberty interest. 

In a March 9, 2022, Report and Recommendation, the magistrate 

judge determined:

(1) Galbraith was not required to exhaust his claims because Louisiana’s 

statutory scheme did not permit him to challenge the Parole Board’s 

rescission under these circumstances; 

(2) It was not clear if Galbraith’s Section 2241 petition was subject to a 

limitations period;

(3) Even if a one-year limitations period was applicable, Galbraith filed a 

Section 1983 complaint within that time period seeking habeas corpus

relief; 

(4) Although Galbraith did not have a liberty interest in the granting of 

parole, there was a state-created liberty interest at issue here because 

the Parole Board regulations in effect at the time permitted rescission 

of a parole grant only in two circumstances, neither of which was

applicable to Galbraith’s situation; 

(5) Galbraith was therefore entitled to notice and a meaningful 

opportunity to be heard prior to rescission of his parole grant, but he 

received neither; and 

(6) A remand to the Parole Board to conduct a rescission hearing would 

be futile because neither permissible basis for rescission was 

applicable. 

The magistrate judge recommended granting Galbraith’s habeas

application and ordering his release on parole within 30 days, subject to the 

original conditions of his parole as granted on November 3, 2016. The State 

filed objections. On March 28, 2022, the district court granted Galbraith’s 

habeas corpus application “for the reasons set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 7 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

8

Report.” The State filed a timely notice of appeal. We granted an unopposed 

motion to stay the district court’s judgment and release order, pending 

appeal.

On appeal, the State argues the district court erred in its holding that 

(1) Galbraith was not required to exhaust state remedies, (2) Galbraith’s 

application was not time-barred, and (3) Galbraith had a protected liberty 

interest in his parole grant prior to release.

DISCUSSION

“In a habeas corpus appeal, we review the district court’s findings of 

fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo.” Reeder v. Vannoy, 978 

F.3d 272, 276 (5th Cir. 2020) (citation omitted).

We first review the district court’s legal conclusion about the oftendifficult issue of the proper statutory vehicle for a prisoner’s claim. Different 

procedural hurdles apply depending on that decision. We then turn to the 

State’s three arguments about reversible error in the district court’s rulings.

I. Habeas corpus application or Civil Rights suit?

Section 2241 is a general statute permitting district courts to grant 

writs of habeas corpus to individuals who are in custody under the authority of 

either federal law or a state court judgment, while Section 2254 limits district 

courts’ authority when considering habeas relief for state prisoners. See

Hartfield v. Osborne, 808 F.3d 1066, 1071–73 (5th Cir. 2015). When state 

prisoners contest their custody and seek to obtain release, the appropriate 

procedure is to file a Section 2254 application. Id. Significant limitations 

apply to the right to relief under that section. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(a)–(i). If 

the prisoner instead is contesting the “execution” of his sentence, Section 

2241 is the relevant statute. See Tolliver v. Dobre, 211 F.3d 876, 877 (5th Cir. 

2000). Another expression of Section 2241’s applicability is that it is for 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 8 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

9

challenges to “the manner in which a sentence is carried out or the prison 

authorities’ determination of its duration.” Pack v. Yusuff, 218 F.3d 448, 451 

(5th Cir. 2000). 

“[Section] 2254 is not an independent avenue through which 

petitioners may pursue habeas relief.” Hartfield, 808 F.3d at 1073. “Instead, 

all habeas petitions . . . are brought under [Section] 2241, and [Section]

2254 places additional limits on a federal court’s ability to grant relief if the 

petitioner is being held in custody ‘pursuant to the judgment of a State 

court.’” Topletz v. Skinner, 7 F.4th 284, 294 (5th Cir. 2021) (quoting § 

2254(a)). Among those limitations is that the application “by a person in 

custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court” must be filed within one 

year of different events; relevant here is “the date on which the factual 

predicate of the claim” was or could have been discovered. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2244(d)(1)(D).

Galbraith is in custody due to a state court judgment and seeks his 

release by requesting the court to reinstate his parole grant. He argues the 

one-year limitation period is inapplicable. That is because his rights allegedly 

were violated when the Parole Board did not hold a hearing prior to the 

rescission of his parole grant, and that means he is challenging “the manner 

in which [his]sentence is carried out or the prison authorities’ determination 

of its duration.” Pack, 218 F.3d at 451.

Three possible vehicles for Galbraith’s claim have been proposed: a 

civil rights suit under Section 1983, or a habeas application under either 

Section 2241 or Section 2254.

We start with Section 1983. A helpful precedent concerned a Section 

1983 suit in which two state prisoners claimed that state authorities had 

violated the Ex Post Facto and Due Process Clauses of the Constitution. See 

Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 76–77 (2005). The violation allegedly arose 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 9 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

10

when officials applied new, harsher guidelines for determining parole to 

prisoners whose crimes had been committed when less-demanding 

guidelines were used. Id. The plaintiff prisoners had been considered for 

parole under the harsher guidelines, were denied parole, and then deemed

ineligible to seek parole again for five years. Id. The plaintiffs wanted 

immediate parole hearings under the prior guidelines. Id. at 77. The Court 

held that the constitutional claims were properly brought using Section 1983. 

Id. at 76. The Court rejected the argument that “the prisoners’ lawsuits, in 

effect, collaterally attack the duration of their confinement; hence, such a 

claim may only be brought through a habeas corpus action.” Id. at 78

(emphasis in original). “A consideration of this Court’s case law makes clear 

that the connection between the constitutionality of the prisoners’ parole 

proceedings and release from confinement is too tenuous here to achieve 

Ohio’s legal door-closing objective.” Id. 

Galbraith, though, is not seeking a new hearing. He insists the parole 

he earlier received was improperly rescinded and should again be reinstated. 

He brings a direct and immediate claim about the duration of his 

confinement, without the contingency that existed in Dotson that a new 

hearing might not grant parole. Habeas is the proper procedure here. 

We now examine the habeas application Galbraith eventually did file 

under Section 2241. The State argues that the one-year statute of limitations

that is set out in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d) applies. The district court disagreed, 

holding that Galbraith’s challenge to the rescission of his parole was properly 

brought under Section 2241 (which has no statute of limitations) because it 

raised issues of “the manner in which a sentence [was] carried out,” quoting

Pack, 218 F.3d 448. Parole was not involved in Pack, though, so it does not 

directly answer whether parole fits within the category of “carrying out” a 

sentence. 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 10 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

11

So, how do we categorize this claim? Does Section 2254 apply to a 

challenge to the validity or length of the original sentence but not to disputes 

about whether the sentence has ended or been shortened by subsequent 

events? In other words, is Section 2254 inapplicable to challenges like 

Galbraith’s to the execution of a sentence? A treatise on federal habeas

procedures supports our characterization of Galbraith’s claim as one that is 

about the “execution” of his sentence. See Tolliver, 211 F.3d at 877. The 

treatise concluded that challenges to the denial of federal parole are properly 

brought under Section 2241. BRIAN R. MEANS, FED. HABEAS MANUAL § 

1:29, at 47 (2023) (quoting Coady v. Vaughn, 251 F.3d 480, 485 (3d Cir. 

2001)). That treatise accepts that denial of parole is an act relating to the 

execution of the sentence. 

The treatise continues: 

All courts agree that [Section] 2241 is an appropriate vehicle to 

challenge government action that inevitably affects the 

duration of the petitioner’s custody, such as challenges to 

administrative orders revoking good-time credits, computation 

of a prisoner’s sentence by prison officials, a right to release on 

parole, or other equivalent sentence-shortening devices. 

Id. at 48. 

While Galbraith is a state prisoner and the above treatise concerns 

federal prisoners, our circuit has extended the same reasoning that challenges 

to parole revocations sound under Section 2241 to state prisoners. Generally 

unpublished opinions offer no precedential weight, but, in this circuit, 

unpublished opinions issued prior to January 1, 1996, are precedential. 5th 

Cir. R. 47.5.3. The district court cited one such opinion. See Richie v. Scott, 

70 F.3d 1269 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished but precedential under Fifth Cir. 

Local R. 47.5.3). In Richie, we rejected the district court’s determination that 

the prisoner had to bring his claim under Section 2254, finding that a 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 11 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

12

challenge to the revocation of parole should be brought under Section 2241. 

Id. at *1 (citing Rome v. Kyle, 42 F.3d 640 (5th Cir. 1994) (unpublished); 

Johnson v. Scott, 56 F.3d 1385 (5th Cir. 1995) (unpublished)). If the party is 

not contesting the legality or validity of the sentence, Section 2254 is 

inapplicable. Id.

In another case, the Johnson panel rejected the state’s invitation to 

allow parole revocation challenges under either Section 2241 or 2254. 

Johnson, 56 F.3d at *1. Rather, it acknowledged that “[o]n numerous 

occasion . . . this court has construed a habeas petition challenging the 

revocation of parole as one arising exclusively under” Section 2241, and it 

ruled accordingly. Id. (citations omitted). Another panel found that the 

district court “improperly characterized [the defendant’s] petition as arising 

under Section 2254” when it was not contesting the legality or validity of the 

sentence. Rome, 42 F.3d at *2. It concluded that a petition must be construed 

under Section 2241 when it “is contesting the manner in which [the] 

sentence is being executed.” Id. 

Based on this precedent, we conclude that such a claim as Galbraith’s 

should indeed be defined as a dispute about how a “sentence is carried out.” 

See Pack, 218 F.3d at 451. Galbraith’s challenge to the revocation of his 

parole was properly brought under Section 2241. Richie, 70 F.3d at *1. 

A prisoner must exhaust state remedies prior to seeking relief under 

Section 2241. Id. Thus, we begin with the exhaustion requirement, discuss 

timeliness briefly, then conclude with examining the merits of the claim.

II. Exhaustion of state remedies

“Whether a federal habeas petitioner has exhausted state remedies is 

a question of law reviewed de novo.” Anderson v. Johnson, 338 F.3d 382, 386 

(5th Cir. 2003). The “exhaustion requirement is not jurisdictional, but 

reflects a policy of federal-state comity . . . designed to give the State an initial 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 12 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

13

opportunity to pass upon and correct alleged violations of its prisoners’ 

federal rights.” Id. (alteration in original) (quotation marks and citations

omitted).

On appeal, the State repeats its arguments that it made to the district 

court that Galbraith could have raised his challenge in a state habeas corpus

application and has failed to exhaust his state court remedies. It relies heavily 

on Sinclair v. Stalder, 867 So. 2d 743 (La. Ct. App. 2003) and Sneed v. Hooper, 

328 So. 3d 1164 (La. 2021). The district court rejected the argument that 

Galbraith could have filed a state habeas application. That is because 

Louisiana’s statutory scheme does not permit a challenge to the Parole 

Board’s rescission on any ground, except for the denial of a revocation 

hearing. Due to the perceived lack of any available state corrective process, 

the district court held that Galbraith was not required to exhaust his habeas

application and met the exception in Section 2254(b)(1)(B)(i). First, we

examine those conclusions.

Federal habeas relief for state prisoners is limited to those applicants 

who have “exhausted the remedies available in the courts of the State,” 

unless “there is an absence of available State corrective process” or 

“circumstances exist that render such process ineffective to protect the 

rights of the applicant.” § 2254(b)(1). An applicant has not exhausted his 

available remedies “if he has the right under the law of the State to raise, by 

any available procedure, the question presented.” § 2254(c). 

The district court relied on the fact that “Louisiana’s parole statutes 

allow for appeal of parole board actions in only one circumstance.” The 

pertinent language in the statute is this:

Parole is an administrative device for the rehabilitation of 

prisoners under supervised freedom from actual restraint, and 

the granting, conditions, or revocation of parole rest in the 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 13 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

14

discretion of the committee on parole. No prisoner or parolee 

shall have a right of appeal from a decision of the committee

regarding release or deferment of release on parole, the 

imposition or modification of authorized conditions of parole, 

the termination or restoration of parole supervision or 

discharge from parole before the end of the parole period, or 

the revocation or reconsideration of revocation of parole, except 

for the denial of a revocation hearing under R.S. 15:574.9.

La. R.S. § 15:574.11(A) (emphases added). 

Another relevant statute provides that 

The committee may order revocation of parole upon a 

determination that:

(1) The parolee has failed, without a satisfactory excuse, to 

comply with a condition of his parole; and

(2) The violation of condition involves the commission of 

another felony, or misconduct including a substantial risk that 

the parolee will commit another felony, or misconduct 

indicating that the parolee is unwilling to comply with proper 

conditions of parole.

La. R.S. § 15:574.9(B). 

Based on the Louisiana statutory language, a prisoner cannot contest 

a decision by the Parole Board unless he has not been afforded a revocation 

hearing and his parole revocation meets the requirements set forth in Section 

15:574.9. Otherwise, as the district court held, there is no statutory recourse 

to challenge a decision by the Parole Board. Making this clear, when 

Galbraith attempted to file an administrative grievance to challenge the 

Parole Board’s decision, his grievance was rejected. The stated reason was 

the Parole Board’s policy that “decisions of these boards are d[i]scretionary

and may not be challenged.” 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 14 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

15

For purposes of Section 2254(b)’s exhaustion requirement, “a 

prisoner’s state remedy must be adequate and available.” Preiser v. 

Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 493 (1973). Based on the statutory scheme alone, 

Galbraith did not have an adequate and available state remedy or corrective 

process that would have allowed him to bring this claim in state court. 

Next, we look at the Louisiana caselaw cited by the parties and the 

district court. The district court discussed Sinclair v. Stalder and determined 

that “[h]ad [Galbraith] attempted to challenge rescission of his parole 

through the state court system, his pleadings would have been dismissed as 

directed in Sinclair because he was not denied a parole revocation hearing, 

which is the only permissible basis to obtain review of a Parole Board 

decision.” The State insists the district court “conflated its own perceived 

likelihood of success on the merits of Galbraith’s challenge with whether 

state review procedures were ‘available’ for Galbraith to pursue.” We 

examine Sinclair.

In that case, a Louisiana prisoner sought review of the Parole Board’s 

decision to deny him early release on parole. Sinclair, 867 So. 2d at 743–44. 

The court held that a state habeas corpus application was “the proper 

mechanism for an inmate who claims his initially lawful custody became 

unlawful due to the parole board’s actions in denying him release on parole.” 

Id. at 744 (emphasis added). The court explained that Section 15:574.11(A) 

has been interpreted to mean “there is no appeal of decisions of the board 

unless the procedural due process protections specifically afforded by the 

hearing provisions of 15:574.9 are violated.” Id.; see also Bosworth v. Whitley, 

627 So. 2d 629, 631 (La. 1993) (outlining Louisiana’s system of parole and 

discussing that the Parole Board’s decisions “generally cannot be appealed” 

as per Section 15:574.11). Accordingly, any challenge to actions of the Parole 

Board not “in accordance with 15:574.9 should be dismissed by the district 

court.” Sinclair, 867 So. 2d at 744. Because Louisiana’s parole statutes did 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 15 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

16

not “create an expectancy of release or liberty interest,” the court held 

Sinclair’s application failed to state a cause of action. Id. In that case, Sinclair 

challenged the parole board’s decision to deny his initial application for 

parole, but the “parole board has full discretion when passing on applications 

for early release.” Id. 

Galbraith’s case significantly differs from Sinclair’s — most clearly in 

the fact that his petition for parole was granted, not denied. Galbraith had a 

parole hearing and was granted a Certificate of Parole. The Parole Board set 

his release date and arranged with the State of Texas to have Galbraith serve

his parole there. Galbraith’s parole grant was rescinded two days prior to his 

release for a reason that appears unauthorized by statute at the time.5

Thus, under Sinclair, if Galbraith would have filed a state habeas corpus

application challenging the Parole Board’s rescission, his application would 

have been dismissed because the claim was not based on the Parole Board’s 

failure to provide a parole revocation hearing. See id. This supports the 

district court’s conclusion that Galbraith was not required to meet the 

exhaustion requirement because there were no available state procedures to 

exhaust. 

The State also discusses a recent Louisiana Supreme Court opinion in 

which the court analyzed a habeas corpus application that involved a 

_____________________

5 This argument tends toward the merits review, but importantly, the Parole Board 

did not have the statutory authority to rescind Galbraith’s parole grant for errors regarding 

victim notification. The relevant statute was not amended until August of 2019, at which 

time victim notification error was added as a permissible basis for parole rescission. LA.

ADMIN. CODE, tit. 22, pt. XI, § 504(K) (eff. Aug. 2019 to Jan. 2020). At the time of 

Galbraith’s rescission, the only permissible bases for rescission were (1) violation of the 

terms of work release, and (2) misconduct prior to release, and upon rescission, the parolee 

would promptly receive a new parole hearing. LA. ADMIN. CODE, tit. 22, pt. XI § 504(K)

(eff. Jan. 2015 to Aug. 2019). 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 16 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

17

prisoner’s challenge to the rescission of his parole. Sneed, 328 So. 3d 1164. 

There, a prisoner was granted parole; four days prior to his scheduled release, 

he collapsed and was hospitalized. Id. at 1164. Upon his release from the 

hospital, and after his parole release date had passed, he returned to prison 

and was issued a disciplinary report for possessing contraband that was

related to his collapse. Id. Although he was later found “not guilty” of 

possessing the contraband, a single Parole Board member rescinded his 

parole grant a few days after that finding. Id. 

When presented with Sneed’s state habeas corpus application, the 

Louisiana Supreme Court held: (1) Sneed’s limited liberty interest attached 

once his release date passed; (2) rescission of his parole was not available for 

that reason; (3) Sneed “was entitled to a revocation hearing rather than a 

rescission of parole”; and (4) the denial of a revocation hearing was 

appealable under Section 15:574.11. Id. at 1165. In an opinion issued a few 

days later, the Louisiana Supreme Court further held the district court erred 

by ordering Sneed to be released on parole because that was “not an available 

remedy” under Section 15:574.11(C) for his due process violation. Sneed v. 

Hooper, 328 So. 3d 1165, 1166 (La. 2021). The Louisiana Supreme Court 

remanded the case to the district court with instructions to remand the 

matter to the Parole Board to conduct a parole revocation hearing pursuant 

to Louisiana law. Id. 

The district court distinguished Sneed on the ground that Sneed’s 

parole was rescinded after his release date passed; thus, he came within the 

statutory exception to appeal the denial of what should have been a

revocation hearing. The district court was correct that Sneed’s emphasis on 

the timing of the Parole Board’s rescission means it does not apply here. 

Sneed, 328 So. 3d at 1166.; see also Sneed, 328 So. 3d at 1164–65. The 

Louisiana Supreme Court construed Sneed’s challenge as a revocation, 

rather than a rescission, because he was kept in prison beyond his release date 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 17 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

18

that was scheduled before the purported rescission decision. Sneed, 328 So.

3d at 1164–65.

Because Galbraith’s rescission occurred two days prior to his release 

date, his challenge could not be construed as a revocation of his parole as in 

Sneed; passage of the release date is a necessary event for invoking 

jurisdiction under Section 15:574.11. See § 15:574.11(A), (C). The Parole 

Board, here, acted beyond the scope of its own policies when it rescinded his 

parole. See supra nn.2, 5. Further, Galbraith did not receive formal, personal 

notice of the rescission until May 1, 2017. 

 We find there is an absence of available State corrective process and 

exhaustion of state remedies is therefore inapplicable and excused.

III. Timeliness

The State also argues that Galbraith’s habeas corpus application 

needed to be brought under Section 2254, with its one-year limitations 

period. We already concluded that the claim here is properly brought under 

Section 2241 as one that challenges the execution of a sentence. There is no 

statute of limitations on that claim, so it cannot be dismissed as untimely. 

We now examine the merits of Galbraith’s habeas petition.

IV. Valid, protected liberty interest

Having determined that Galbraith’s habeas application arises under 

Section 2241 and is not untimely, we conduct a de novo review of his 

application. See Martinez v. Caldwell, 644 F.3d 238, 242 (5th Cir. 2011). 

Galbraith posits that the State violated his substantive and procedural 

due process rights by rescinding his parole grant without providing notice of 

the reason for rescission and an opportunity to be heard. He argues “the 

State created a right to parole that was granted” and, thus, that right could 

not be taken away without due process of law. The magistrate judge 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 18 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

19

determined Galbraith’s procedural due process rights had been violated,6

and the district court agreed. 

The State contends Galbraith is not entitled to relief because 

“Louisiana law does not afford or entitle Galbraith a right to parole or release 

onto parole until” he isreleased from incarceration under “a validly executed 

Certificate of Parole.” The State bases its argument on the premise that the 

Parole Board has unfettered discretion in all aspects of parole and release 

decisions. In support of its position, the State relies on an unpublished 

opinion from the Louisiana First Circuit that states: 

The parole statutes do not create an expectancy of release or 

liberty interest. Sinclair, [] 867 So.2d at 744. The parole board 

has full discretion when passing on applications for early 

release. Id. Even if an inmate is fully rehabilitated, the 

Louisiana parole scheme does not require that he be 

paroled. Id. The procedures used by the Parole Board in 

deciding whether an inmate should be released early are 

beyond the scope of this court’s review. Id.

Burton v. Bd. of Parole, 2009 CA 1246, 2010 WL 503019, *1 (La. App. 1 Cir. 

Feb. 12, 2010). That opinion relies on Sinclair for its analysis, which we have 

already rejected as inapplicable in this case. We conclude the same now with

regard to Burton because, there, the Louisiana First Circuit was considering 

an appeal from a prisoner’s denial of parole. Id. The opinion discusses 

“expectancy of release,” while the question here is whether there are limits 

_____________________

6 The magistrate judge did not reach the question of whether there was a 

substantive due process violation. Because we agree with the magistrate judge that 

Galbraith’s procedural due process rights were violated, we too do not reach the 

substantive due process question.

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 19 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

20

on the Parole Board to rescind parole after its formal grant but before the 

effective date of release.

The State also relies on a Louisiana Supreme Court decision that 

addressed parole eligibility for inmates sentenced to life and the commutation 

of those sentences. See Bosworth, 627 So. 2d at 630. In Bosworth, the state 

court held that state prisoners who were statutorily ineligible for parole had 

no protected liberty interest in parole eligibility because the Louisiana 

legislature set those parameters. See id. at 633–34. Because the analysis was 

limited to non-grantees, it is not instructive of whether a parole grantee —

such as Galbraith — has a protected liberty interest. 

Finally, the State argues a United States Supreme Court decision is 

dispositive. See Jago v. Van Curen, 454 U.S. 14 (1981). As the State puts it, 

that case “explicitly held that a prisoner has no protected liberty interest in 

parole until the prisoner is actually released on parole, even where an initial 

decision to grant parole is made and later rescinded.” The State’s summary 

of the Supreme Court’s holding is overly broad, and the Court’s analysis and 

holding is distinguishable from this case. 

Jago is factually similar to this case, but there are notable differences 

that impacted that outcome. The Jago Court reversed the Sixth Circuit’s 

decision that the Ohio Parole Board violated the prisoner’s procedural due 

process rights when it rescinded his parole grant prior to its effective date 

without a hearing, a rescission based on the discovery that Jago had falsified 

information in his parole interview. Id. at 15–17. The Court held that the 

Sixth Circuit “erred in finding a constitutionally protected liberty interest by 

rel[ying] upon the ‘mutually explicit understandings’ language of Perry v. 

Sindermann,” 408 U.S. 593 (1972). Id. at 17. That was because the Court’s 

“decision in Sindermann was concerned only with the Fourteenth 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 20 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

21

Amendment’s protection of ‘property’ interests, and its language, relied 

upon by the Court of Appeals, was expressly so limited.” Id. 

The Court reiterated that “‘[t]he ground for a constitutional claim, if 

any, must be found in statutes or other rules defining the obligations of the 

authority charged with exercising clemency.’” Id. at 20 (quoting Connecticut 

Bd. of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 465 (1981)). In Ohio, parole for 

prisoners lay entirely within the discretion of the Ohio Adult Parole 

Authority. Id. at 16. The Court did not discuss any statutory limits on 

withdrawing a grant. Instead, the argument as to why process was due was 

based on quasi-contract. Id. at 17–18. The Court rejected the Sixth Circuit’s 

approach that relied on both the general law of contracts and common law to 

give rise to a protected liberty interest in that particular parole context. Id. at 

18–20. 

Thus, the Ohio statutes providing for parole did not create a protected 

liberty interest. Jago was therefore not entitled to a hearing prior to the 

rescission of his parole. Id. at 21–22. We need to examine the Louisiana 

statutory framework, but we first give background on liberty interests.

Those seeking to invoke the Fourteenth Amendment’s procedural 

protection must establish that life, liberty, or property is at stake. Wilkinson 

v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005). “A liberty interest may arise from the 

Constitution itself, by reason of guarantees implicit in the word ‘liberty,’ or 

it may arise from an expectation or interest created by state laws or policies.” 

Id. (citations omitted). The Supreme Court has recognized a liberty interest 

subject to due process protection even when that interest was not created by 

the Constitution. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974). The 

Wolff case dealt with the Nebraska statutory right to good-time credit, which

— according to the statute’s limiting language — could only be lost due to 

serious misconduct: 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 21 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

22

But here the State itself has not only provided a statutory right 

to good time but also specifies that it is to be forfeited only for 

serious misbehavior. Nebraska may have the authority to 

create, or not, a right to a shortened prison sentence through 

the accumulation of credits for good behavior, and it is true that 

the Due Process Clause does not require a hearing in every 

conceivable case of government impairment of private 

interest. But the State having created the right to good time 

and itself recognizing that its deprivation is a sanction 

authorized for major misconduct, the prisoner’s interest has 

real substance and is sufficiently embraced within Fourteenth 

Amendment ‘liberty’ to entitle him to those minimum 

procedures appropriate under the circumstances and required 

by the Due Process Clause to insure that the state-created right 

is not arbitrarily abrogated.

Id. (quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, “a person’s liberty is 

equally protected, even when the liberty itself is a statutory creation of the 

State.” Id. at 558. The purpose of due process protection is to shield a 

person “against arbitrary action of government.” Id. Wolff is directly 

applicable in that it states that a liberty interest arose because of the specific, 

exclusive reasons a state statute gave for losing good-time credits.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has stated that “[t]here is no 

constitutional or inherent right to parole, but once a State grants a prisoner 

the conditional liberty properly dependent on the observance of special 

parole restrictions, due process protections attach to the decision to revoke 

parole.” Vitek v. Jones, 445 U.S. 480, 488 (1980) (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). Though Vitek discussed parole revocation, implying that 

the parole had commenced, we find it instructive for our purposes. Once a 

“State grants a prisoner a right or expectation that adverse action will not be 

taken against him except upon the occurrence of specified behavior, the 

determination of whether such behavior has occurred becomes critical, and 

the minimum requirements of procedural due process appropriate for the 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 22 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

23

circumstances must be observed.” Id. at 490–91 (quotation marks and 

citation omitted). 

We have applied these principles from Wolff and Vitek to reverse a 

grant of summary judgment that dismissed a prisoner’s claim that his goodtime credits were revoked without due process. See Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 

1235, 1250–51 (5th Cir. 1989). 

We must look at Louisiana law to determine whether a liberty interest 

has been created so as to invoke due process protection.

Louisiana’s parole system is codified in Louisiana Revised Statutes 

§ 15:574.2, et seq. “[T]he granting, conditions, or revocation of parole rest in 

the discretion of the committee on parole.” La. R.S. § 15:574.11(A). At the 

time of Galbraith’s parole rescission in April 2017, the Louisiana 

Administrative Code provided grounds for rescinding parole once it had been 

granted:

Upon notification by the secretary of the Department of Public 

Safety and Corrections that an offender has violated the terms 

of work release granted under § 311 or has engaged in 

misconduct prior to the inmate’s release, the committee may 

rescind its decision to grant parole. In such cases, the inmate 

shall promptly receive another parole hearing.

LA.ADMIN.CODE, tit. 22, Pt XI, § 504(K) (eff. Jan. 2015 to Aug. 2019). 

Thus, unlike Jago, the Louisiana parole authorities did not have 

unlimited discretion. Certainly, a liberty interest was subject to rescission in 

only two circumstances: (1) if the parolee violated terms of work release, or 

(2) if the prospective parolee engaged in misconduct prior to his release. The 

first possibility — violating terms of work-release — certainly seems relevant 

only after parole has been granted, but regardless, that and misconduct before 

parole begins were the only statutory reasons for rescinding parole prior to 

an inmate’s release. 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 23 Date Filed: 10/23/2023
No. 22-30159

24

We agree with the magistrate judge’s conclusion that these statutory 

provisions created a liberty interest protecting Galbraith from rescission:

While it is true that Louisiana’s parole statutes do not create a 

liberty interest in the granting of parole, once parole has been 

granted, the Parole Board’s discretion to rescind that parole 

was statutorily limited to an objective, fact-based finding that 

Petitioner had either: (1) violated the terms of his work release, 

or (2) engaged in misconduct. Neither statutory basis was even 

argued, much less established in April 2017. Under the 

Fourteenth Amendment, Petitioner was entitled to notice and 

a meaningful opportunity to be heard before rescinding his 

parole, which did not occur. 

Galbraith’s parole was ostensibly rescinded because of an alleged

problem with notice to a victim. He was notified of this reason on May 1, 

2017, 10 days after his parole was rescinded. At the time, that was not a

permissible reason to rescind his grant of parole. 

Therefore, Galbraith’s parole was improperly rescinded.

We AFFIRM and REMAND for the district court to release 

Galbraith, subject to the parole conditions set forth by the Parole Board in its 

original decision on November 3, 2016. 

Case: 22-30159 Document: 00516940626 Page: 24 Date Filed: 10/23/2023