Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d and is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 40571 Su m m ar yC al endar NOR RI S C LAR K , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant v. RI SSI E O W EN S; J O SE A LI SED A; J U AN I TAG O N ZAL ES, D efen da n 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 S ou t h ernD i st ri ctof T exas U SD C N o. 2: 07- C V - 351 B ef ore JO L LY , W IE N E R , an d E L R O D , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * N o r r is C la r k , T e x a s p r is o n e r#6 4 8 9 4 8 , a p p e a ls th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s di sm i ssalof

hi s 42 U . S . C . § 1983 com pl ai n tf or fai l u re t o st ate a cl ai m on w h i ch r eli ef m ay begr ant ed. I n M ay 199 3, C l ar k w as c onvi c t ed o f aggr avat ed s exual as s aulto f

ac hi l d, at hi r d d e gr e e f e l o ny, a nd was se nt e nc e d t o 4 0 ye ar s i n pr i s o n. In h is § 1 9 8 3 co m p la in t, C la r kch a lle n g e dth e re p e a te dd e n ia l o f h is p a r o le as un constit u t i on al . C l ark’ s c l ai m s ari se ou tof chan ges t o t h e nu m ber of board m em bers r equ i red t o v ot e forp arol e. P ri or to 19 97, p arol e deter m i n ati on s w ere United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Ma rch 31, 2010 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I Clerk Case: 08-40571 Document: 00511067101 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 08- 40571

2 m a d e b yp a n e ls o f th r e e m e m b e r s o f th e P a r o le B o a r d . W al lac ev . Q uar t e r m an , 5 1 6 F .3 d3 5 1 , 3 5 3 ( 5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); T EX . C ODE C RIM . P . ART . 42. 18 § 7(e) (V ernon 198 8) (repeal ed). E f

fect ive S eptem ber 1, 199 7, t h e l aw w as chan gedt o requi re t h at t w o- t h i rds of t h e en t i re 18-m em ber B oard vot e f or parol e i n cer t ai n cases . T EX . G OV’ T C ODEA NN . § 508. 046 ;W allace , 5 1 6 F .3 da t3 5 3 . I n 2 0 0 4 , t h e B o a r d ’s s iz e w a s re d u c e d f

r o m 1 8 m e m b e r s to s e v e n m e m b e r s . § 5 0 8 .0 3 1 (a ). In h is c o m pl ai nt , Cl ar k a r gue d thatt he r e t r o ac t ive a pp l i ca t i o n o f § 5 08 . 04 6 byt he P a r o le B oa rdviol a tedthe E q u a lP rotection , D u e P roce ss, an dE x P ost F a cto cl au ses. W e revi ew a d i st ri ctcou rt ’ s d i sm i ssalof a com pl ai n tf

or fai l u re t o st ate a c la im d e n o v o . Be r r y v . Br ady , 1 9 2 F .3 d5 0 4 , 5 0 7 (5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). C la r k ’s c o n c lu s o r ya s s e r tio n s th a t h e w a s tr e a t e d d iffe r e n tlyth a n o th e rs im ila r ly s i t u a t e di n ma t e s a r e i n s u f f i c i e n tt o s t a t e a n e q u a lp r o t e c t i o n c l a i m. S ee B ri n km an n v. Joh n st on , 793 F . 2 d 1 1 1 , 1 13 (5t h C i r. 198 6) . B ecau se t h ere i s no l ibe r t y i nt e r e s ti n pa r o l e und e rTe xa s l aw, Te xa s i nm at e s c anno tm o unt c hal l enges agai nst st at e par ol e r evi ew pro c edur es on pr oc edur alors ubst ant ive du e process groun ds. See Joh n son v. R od rigu ez , 110 F . 3d299 , 308 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 7 ); O r e lla n av. K

y le , 65 F. 3d 29, 332 ( 5t h C i r . 1995) . Last l y, t hi s c our thas determ i n ed that t h e P arol e B oard’ s r et roact ive ap pl i cat i on of § 5 08. 046 d oes not vi ol at e the E x Pos tFact o Cl ause be c ause i ti s a di sc r et i onar y r ul e a ddre ss i ng a p ri son er’ s “su i tab i l i ty, n ot eli gibil i ty, f or p a role. ” S ee W

allace , 516 F. 3d at355- 5 6 . Cl ar k a l s o c hall e nge s t he di s t r i c t c o ur t ’ s de ni al o f hi s m o t i o n t o a m e nd a nd ar gues t hatt he di st r i c tc our ter r ed i n fai l i ng t o e xer c i ses uppl em ent al ju r is d ic t io n o v e rh is s t a t e la w c la im s . T h e d is t r i c tc o u r t ’s d e n ia l o f C la r k ’s m ot i on t o am en d w as ha rm l ess a s am en dm en tw ou l d h ave been f u t i l e. S ee B azrow x v. S co tt , 1 3 6 F .3 d1 0 5 3 , 1 0 5 4 -5 5 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 8 ); Avat ar Explorati on , I

n c. v. Ch evron, U. S . A . , I n c. , 9 3 3 F .2d 3 1 4 , 3 2 1 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 1 ). Case: 08-40571 Document: 00511067101 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/31/2010N o. 08- 40571

3 Bec aus e t he di s t r i c tc o urtdi s m i s s e d a l lo f Cl ar k’ s f

e de r alc l ai m s , t he di s m i ssa lo f

a ny r e m ai ni ng s t at e l aw c l ai m s w as no ta n a bus e o f di s c r e t i o n. S ee Bas s v . Parkwoo d Ho s p. , 1 8 0 F . 3 d2 3 4 , 2 4 6 ( 5 t h Cir . 1 9 9 9 ) . Ho we v e r , we m o dif y t he j udg m e nt o f di s m i s s al t o r e f l e c t t hat any s t at e l aw c l ai m s are d is m is s e dw ith o u t p r eju d ic e . S eeid . T h e d i stri ct co u r t’s dism i ssa lof C l a rk ’ s § 1 9 8 3 com p l a i n t f or fail u re to sta te acla im co u n ts a s a str ik e forp u rp o se s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee A d ep egbav. Ham m on s, 1 0 3 F .3 d3 8 3 , 3 8 7 -8 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). C la r kis w ar ned t hatif

h e a c c um ul at es t hre e s t r i kes under § 1 915( g) , he w i l lnotbe a llo w e dto p r o c e e dinfo r m ap a u p e r is ina n yciv il a c tio n o ra p p e a lu n l e s s h e is u n d e rim m in e n t d a n g e ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). J UDGMENT MODI F I ED A ND A F F I RMED AS MODI F I ED ; S ANC T I ON W A R N IN G IS S U E D . Case: 08-40571 Document: 00511067101 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/31/2010