Armstead v. Scott ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-20723
Conference Calendar
WILLIE DEE ARMSTEAD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT, Executive Director,
Texas Department of Criminal Justice;
VERONICA BALLARD; VICTOR RODRIGUEZ;
BENNIE ELMORE; JOHN ESCOBEDO,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-99-CV-1498
- - - - - - - - - -
February 14, 2001
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Willie Armstead, Texas prisoner # 249434, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). He argues that he
challenged the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles’ (parole board)
customs and policies as unconstitutional but that he did not
challenge the parole board’s decision to deny his parole;
therefore, the district court’s dismissal based on Heck v.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 00-20723
-2-
Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486, 487 (1994), was inappropriate.
Armstead further contends that the district court abused its
discretion when it did not conduct a Spears hearing.
In his complaint, Armstead alleged that his rights to due
process and equal protection were violated because, (1) the
parole board miscalculated his parole-eligibility date and set
off dates; (2) the parole board pulled his file from review
because of a disciplinary case that did not exist; (3) only two
members of the board, rather than three, voted on his parole
review; and (4) the parole board for the Ellis Unit, where
Armstead is incarcerated, does not apply its rules and
regulations in the same fashion as panels in other regions and
other units in order to provide a supply of free labor for the
Ellis Unit’s industrial facilities. On appeal, Armstead
reasserts the merits of his underlying complaint.
Armstead has failed to allege that the parole board violated
his rights as secured by the federal Constitution or laws. See
Thomas v. Torres, 717 F.2d 248, 249 (5th Cir. 1983). He has no
constitutionally protected liberty interest in obtaining parole
in Texas and thus no claim for violation of due process. See
Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71, 74 (5th Cir. 1995). His equal-
protection allegations are conclusional. See Arnaud v. Odom, 870
F.2d 304, 307 (5th Cir. 1989). Moreover, he fails to indicate
that the parole board’s alleged policy of denying parole to
prisoners in the Ellis Unit had any effect on his individual
parole status. The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.