Enriquez v. Stringfellow, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
November 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-50425
Summary Calendar
JUAN RUDY ENRIQUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
A. M. STRINGFELLOW; JAMES PAUL KIEL, JR.,
Defendant-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-02-CV-261-JN)
Before BARKSDALE, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Rudy Enriquez, Texas prisoner number 227122, appeals, pro
se, the FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983
action by which Enriquez challenged Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles’ procedures on due process and equal protection grounds.
(Enriquez’ motion for appointment of counsel is DENIED.)
A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is reviewed de novo. E.g., McGrew
v. Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles, 47 F.3d 158, 160 (5th Cir.

-- 1 of 2 --

1995). As a Texas prisoner, Enriquez is precluded from complaining
that the procedures used to determine his parole eligibility were
unconstitutional. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 995 (1997). Cook v. Texas Dep’t of
Criminal Justice Transitional Planning Dep’t, 37 F.3d 166 (5th Cir.
1994), did not call into question the long-standing rule later
iterated in Johnson that Texas prisoners have no protected liberty
interest in parole and, therefore, cannot challenge the
constitutionality of review procedures attendant to parole
decisions; the issue was not raised in that case.
The absence of a protected liberty interest in release on
parole does not, however, preclude an equal protection claim.
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 487 n.11 (1995). Nevertheless,
Enriquez does not raise the equal protection claim in his brief;
that issue is abandoned. E.g., Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222,
224-25 (5th Cir. 1993).
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED

-- 2 of 2 --