Court Opinion

ID: 9366239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-26 15:04:06.954399+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:50.720793
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-10732     Document: 00516429230         Page: 1     Date Filed: 08/11/2022

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

                                                                             FILED
                                  No. 21-10732                         August 11, 2022
                                Summary Calendar                        Lyle W. Cayce
                                                                             Clerk

   Keith Druzzel Kennebrew,

                                                           Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                       versus

   Amarillo Parole Office; Charles Shipman; Anthony
   Ramirez,

                                                         Defendants—Appellees.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Northern District of Texas
                            USDC No. 2:18-CV-39

   Before Barksdale, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam:*
          Keith Druzzel Kennebrew, Texas state prisoner # 330114 and
   proceeding pro se, appeals: the dismissal with prejudice of his complaint
   under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 as frivolous; and the denial of his Federal Rule of

          *
            Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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   opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 21-10732      Document: 00516429230          Page: 2   Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                    No. 21-10732

   Civil Procedure 59(e) motion for reconsideration. In his § 1983 complaint,
   Kennebrew claimed that his due-process and equal-protection rights were
   violated because defendants did not properly apply the Texas parole statutes
   to allow him to use earned good-time credits to seek early release.
          Kennebrew’s complaint was dismissed as frivolous pursuant to 28
   U.S.C. §§ 1915A and 1915(e)(2), and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). Our court
   need not determine whether the appropriate standard of review of that
   dismissal is de novo or abuse of discretion because each standard produces the
   same result. E.g., Morris v. McAllester, 702 F.3d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 2012)
   (noting court may decline to resolve standard of review when appeal fails
   under both standards); Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005).
          Regarding Kennebrew’s due-process claims, our court has held that
   Texas law does not create a liberty interest in parole that is protected by the
   Due Process Clause. Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir. 1997);
   Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997); Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d
   29, 31–32 (5th Cir. 1995). Accordingly, even if Kennebrew is eligible for
   parole, he has no right or constitutional expectancy to early release on parole
   “because parole is within the total and unfettered discretion of the State [of
   Texas]”. Teague v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769, 774 (5th Cir. 2007).
          As for his conclusory equal-protection claim, Kennebrew has not
   presented any facts demonstrating that defendants “intentionally
   discriminated against him because of membership in a protected class” or
   that he was “intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated
   and that there [wa]s no rational basis for the difference in treatment”. Gibson
   v. Tex. Dep’t of Ins.—Div. of Workers’ Comp., 700 F.3d 227, 238 (5th Cir.
   2012) (citation omitted).
          Denial of a Rule 59(e) motion is reviewed for abuse of discretion. E.g.,
   Trevino v. City of Fort Worth, 944 F.3d 567, 570 (5th Cir. 2019). Kennebrew

                                         2
Case: 21-10732      Document: 00516429230           Page: 3    Date Filed: 08/11/2022

                                     No. 21-10732

   does not contend the court should have granted his motion for
   reconsideration based upon “an intervening change in the controlling law”
   or that he presented “newly discovered evidence that was previously
   unavailable”. Demahy v. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., 702 F.3d 177, 182 (5th Cir.
   2012). Moreover, he does not demonstrate dismissal was based upon “a
   manifest error of law or fact”. Id.
          The district court’s dismissal of Kennebrew’s complaint as frivolous
   counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Coleman v. Tollefson, 575 U.S.
   532, 537–40 (2015). Kennebrew is WARNED that if he accumulates three
   strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
          AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

                                          3