Court Opinion

ID: 9963987
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-26 18:00:55.161556+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:25:07.463886
License: Public Domain

Case: 24-50036            Document: 33-1         Page: 1      Date Filed: 04/26/2024

           United States Court of Appeals
                for the Fifth Circuit
                                   ____________
                                                                             United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                      Fifth Circuit
                                    No. 24-50036
                                  Summary Calendar                                  FILED
                                  ____________                                  April 26, 2024
                                                                               Lyle W. Cayce
Anthony Bernard Loftis,                                                             Clerk

                                                                  Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                          versus

Bryan Collier,

                                             Defendant—Appellee.
                   ______________________________

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                        for the Western District of Texas
                             USDC No. 1:23-CV-1236
                   ______________________________

Before Haynes, Willett, and Duncan, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
       Anthony Bernard Loftis, Texas prisoner # 1636215, seeks to proceed
in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his pro se 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 suit challenging the policy and procedures utilized by the Texas Parole
Board during his parole revocation proceedings. To proceed IFP, a litigant
must demonstrate both financial eligibility and a nonfrivolous issue for

       _____________________
       *
           This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 24-50036        Document: 33-1         Page: 2   Date Filed: 04/26/2024

                                  No. 24-50036

appeal. See Carson v. Polley, 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Because Loftis
presents a nonfrivolous argument for appeal, we GRANT his motion to
proceed IFP. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(1); Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220
(5th Cir. 1983). However, for the reasons stated below, we dispense with
further briefing and AFFIRM because the record and Loftis’s pleadings
indicate that the district court did not abuse its discretion with respect to the
denial of his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) motion. See Baugh v.
Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997).
       We are “obligated to examine the basis for our jurisdiction, sua sponte,
if necessary.” Williams v. Chater, 87 F.3d 702, 704 (5th Cir. 1996). Loftis’s
notice of appeal was not filed within 30 days of the district court’s order
denying his Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) motion. See Fed. R. App.
P. 4(a)(1)(A) and (4)(A)(iv). Thus, we lack jurisdiction to consider that
judgment, as well as the district court’s underlying judgment dismissing
Loftis’s § 1983 complaint. See Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007).
Since Loftis’s notice of appeal was filed within 30 days of the December 21,
2023, text order denying his Rule 60(b) motion, we have jurisdiction to
review that order. See Williams v. Chater, 87 F.3d 702, 705 (5th Cir. 1996).
       Assuming the district court denied Loftis’s Rule 60(b) motion for the
reasons stated in its judgment dismissing his § 1983 action, Loftis raises a
nonfrivolous issue with respect to the propriety of the district court’s
determination that his claim was barred by Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477
(1994). See Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 81-82 (2005). Nevertheless,
Loftis’s claim is based on a contention that the Texas Parole Board failed to
abide by policy and operating procedures required by the Texas Department
of Criminal Justice in regard to the Special Needs Offender Program. Such a
claim is not cognizable in a § 1983 proceeding. See Butler v. Porter, 999 F.3d
287, 297 (5th Cir. 2021); Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir.
1997). Accordingly, Loftis fails to demonstrate that the district court abused

                                       2
Case: 24-50036       Document: 33-1       Page: 3   Date Filed: 04/26/2024

                                No. 24-50036

its discretion in denying his Rule 60(b) motion. See Bailey v. Cain, 609 F.3d
763, 767 (5th Cir. 2010).
       IFP GRANTED; AFFIRMED.

                                      3