Court Opinion

ID: 9966326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-05-06 18:00:43.394635+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:46.220640
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-40394            Document: 59-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 05/06/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit                                        United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit

                                   ____________                                     FILED
                                                                                   May 6, 2024
                                    No. 23-40394                               Lyle W. Cayce
                                  Summary Calendar                                  Clerk
                                  ____________

Stephen Thomas,

                                                                 Petitioner—Appellant,

                                          versus

Bobby Lumpkin, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division; Bryan Collier, Executive Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice,

                                            Respondents—Appellees.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Eastern District of Texas
                             USDC No. 9:20-CV-163
                   ______________________________

Before Barksdale, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Proceeding pro se, Stephen Thomas, Texas prisoner # 317322,
challenges the district court’s Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) (allowing dismissal for failure to state
claim). (He does not contest, and therefore has abandoned, any challenge to
       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-40394          Document: 59-1     Page: 2    Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                 No. 23-40394

the court’s Rule 12(b)(1) dismissal of his claims against Appellees in their
official capacities. See, e.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224–25 (5th Cir.
1993) (explaining even pro se contentions must be briefed to be preserved).)
       Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals are reviewed de novo. E.g., Romero v. City of
Grapevine, 888 F.3d 170, 176 (5th Cir. 2018). Thomas’ pro se brief is
construed liberally. E.g., Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2002).
To obtain § 1983 relief, he must show the violation of a constitutional or
statutory right. 42 U.S.C. § 1983; see also Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71, 73 (5th
Cir. 1995).
       Thomas first repeats his assertion that, after revocation of his parole,
he was assigned a new prisoner number, resulting in his parole review being
held every two years instead of annually. He contends he has a protected
liberty interest in being considered for parole each year. Our court has
repeatedly recognized, however, that Texas prisoners do not have a
protected liberty interest in parole. E.g., Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299,
308 (5th Cir. 1997). Therefore, prisoners cannot bring a procedural or
substantive challenge to state parole-review procedures. E.g., id. To the
extent he claims an equal-protection violation, it is unsupported by facts
showing either an improper motivation or a discriminatory intent. See Gibson
v. Tex. Dep’t of Ins.-Div. of Workers’ Comp., 700 F.3d 227, 238 (5th Cir. 2012)
(outlining standard).
       Next, Thomas asserts he has been denied work-furlough-program
privileges that existed under the repealed statutory scheme in effect at the
time of his conviction. Even if Thomas was subject to the repealed provision,
he has no protected liberty interest in the work-furlough program. See
Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1247 (5th Cir. 1989) (explaining no
constitutional entitlement to particular work assignment); Tobias v. Collins,

                                       2
Case: 23-40394       Document: 59-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 05/06/2024

                                No. 23-40394

No. 94-41146, 1995 WL 337754, at *2 (5th Cir. 19 May 1995) (observing
prisoners have no protected liberty interest in furlough under Texas law).
       Finally, Thomas contends the district court improperly dismissed his
action without holding a jury trial. “Dismissal of [his] claims pursuant to a
valid 12(b)(6) motion does not violate [his] right to a jury trial”. Haase v.
Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., 748 F.3d 624, 631 n.5 (5th Cir. 2014).
      AFFIRMED.

                                      3