Hicks v. TX Board of Pardon ( 2023 )

Case: 22-40765 Document: 00516935937 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
____________ FILED
October 18, 2023
No. 22-40765 Lyle W. Cayce
Summary Calendar Clerk
____________
Norris Hicks,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Texas Board of Pardon and Paroles, each member in official
capacity; David Guiterriez, Chairman, Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles; Ressie Owens, Chairman, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles;
Paul Keil, Board member/Commissioner, Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles; John LNU; Jane LNU,
Defendants—Appellees.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:22-CV-134
______________________________
Before Jones, Smith, and Dennis, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Norris Hicks, Texas prisoner # 505593, filed a pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983complaint, arguing that his constitutional rights of due process and equal
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 22-40765 Document: 00516935937 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/18/2023
No. 22-40765
protection were violated when he was denied parole numerous times. He
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 complaint under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) as frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
First, Hicks challenges the dismissal of his due process claims.
Because Texas laws and regulations do not create a constitutionally protected
liberty interest in parole, the district court did not err in dismissing Hicks’s
due process claims. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir.
1997); see also Carlucci v. Chapa, 884 F.3d 534, 537-38 (5th Cir. 2018). Next,
Hicks’s challenge to the dismissal of his equal protection claim is likewise
unavailing. See Gibson v. Tex. Dep’t of Ins.-Div. of Workers’ Comp., 700 F.3d
227, 238 (5th Cir. 2012); Johnson, 110 F.3d at 306-07. Last, Hicks argues that
the defendants were not entitled to immunity and that the district court erred
in failing to rule on this issue. We are not required to address this alternative
argument for or against dismissal and decline to do so now. See United States
v. Rafoi, 60 F.4th 982, 995 (5th Cir. 2023).
AFFIRMED.
2