IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-30796

GARY BOUDREAUX,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JAMES M. LEBLANC; DARREL VANNOY; STEPHANIE LAMARTINIERE; 

KEVIN BENJAMIN; DAVID VOORHIES; T. LEONARD; D. ANTHONY; J. 

DUZANT; S. ADAMS; ORVILLE LAMARTINIERE, JR.; JOSEPH F.G. 

LAMARTINIERE,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Middle District of Louisiana

USDC No. 3:14-CV-377

Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary Boudreaux, Louisiana prisoner # 101068, moves for leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the judgment of the district 

court granting the motion to dismiss filed by defendants James M. LeBlanc, N. 

Burl Cain, Stephanie Lamartiniere, Kevin Benjamin, David Voorhies, T. 

Leonard, Orville Lamartiniere, and Joseph F. G. Lamartiniere, dismissing 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

July 21, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 15-30796 Document: 00513602755 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
No. 15-30796

without prejudice for lack of service the claims against defendants D. Anthony, 

J. Duzant, and S. Adams, and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction 

over Boudreaux’s state law claims. Boudreaux challenges the district court’s 

denial of his IFP motion on the ground that his appeal was not taken in good 

faith. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); FED. R. APP. P. 24(a)(5); Baugh v. Taylor, 117 

F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).

Our inquiry into Boudreaux’s good faith “is limited to whether the appeal 

involves legal points arguable on their merits (and therefore not frivolous).” 

Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983) (internal quotation 

marks and citations omitted). We need not consider whether a nonfrivolous 

issue exists regarding the dismissal of those claims not addressed by 

Boudreaux. See FED. R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); see Brinkmann v. Dallas County 

Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Yohey v. Collins, 985 

F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993).

This court reviews a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) dismissal 

de novo. In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007). 

A complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted when it does 

not contain “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief 

that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) 

(internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

“To prevail on a claim of retaliation, a prisoner must establish (1) a 

specific constitutional right, (2) the defendant’s intent to retaliate against the 

prisoner for his or her exercise of that right, (3) a retaliatory adverse act, and 

(4) causation.” McDonald v. Steward, 132 F.3d 225, 231 (5th Cir. 1998). To 

satisfy the element of causation, the prisoner must show that the adverse act 

would not have occurred but for the retaliatory motive. Id. “The inmate must 

produce direct evidence of motivation or, the more probable scenario, allege a 

2

 Case: 15-30796 Document: 00513602755 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
No. 15-30796

chronology of events from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred.” Woods 

v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks and 

citation omitted). The adverse action against the prisoner must be more than 

de minimis. Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 686 (5th Cir. 2006). 

Although Boudreaux argues that the disciplinary procedures brought 

against him in 2011 and 2012 constituted improper retaliation that deprived 

him of his right to Louisiana parole, “the presence of a parole system by itself 

does not give rise to a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole 

release.” Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369, 373 (1987). Moreover, 

Boudreaux ignores that the district court rejected his claims of disciplinary 

retaliation on the ground that he had failed to allege facts sufficient to 

establish causation. See McDonald, 132 F.3d at 231.

Contrary to Boudreaux’s assertion, the district court did not rely upon 

inapposite legal authority to dismiss his claims that defendants Voorhies and 

Benjamin retaliated against him by withholding his legal materials; rather, 

the district court held that Boudreaux failed to allege that these defendants 

committed more than de minimis adverse acts. See Morris, 449 F.3d at 686. 

Further, Boudreaux’s complaint offered only conclusory assertions to show 

that these defendants intended to retaliate against him by withholding his 

legal materials. See McDonald, 132 F.3d at 231; Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. 

Boudreaux identifies no constitutional basis for his claim that 

defendants Stephanie and Joseph Lamartiniere engaged in nepotism. See FED.

R. APP. P. 28(a)(8); Yohey, 985 F.2d at 225. He likewise fails to show that a 

nonfrivolous issue exists regarding whether his complaint states an Eighth 

Amendment claim against these two supervisory officials by alleging their

direct involvement in the medical treatment of his shoulder. See Thompkins 

v. Belt, 828 F.2d 298, 303-04 (5th Cir. 1987).

3

 Case: 15-30796 Document: 00513602755 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/21/2016
No. 15-30796

The IFP motion is DENIED, see Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 n.24, and 

Boudreaux’s appeal is DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 

The district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim and our dismissal of

this appeal as frivolous each counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1761-64 (2015); Adepegba 

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Boudreaux is CAUTIONED 

that, if he accumulates three strikes, he will no longer be allowed to proceed 

IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in 

any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See

§ 1915(g).

4

 Case: 15-30796 Document: 00513602755 Page: 4 Date Filed: 07/21/2016