United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
June 13, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-50064
Summary Calendar
CHRIS GARNER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BRIAN COLLIER, Director, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles;
GERALD GARRETT, Chairman, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(A-02-CV-492-JN)
Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Chris Garner, Texas prisoner # 716389, appeals, pro se, the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint pursuant to FED. R. CIV.
P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. We review a Rule
12(b)(6) dismissal de novo. E.g., Cousin v. Small, 325 F.3d 627,
631 (5th Cir. 2003).
Garner contends he was deprived of an opportunity to amend his
complaint to state a claim. Garner has failed to identify
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
additional facts that could have been pleaded to state a civil
rights claim, and he set forth his “best case” in the district
court; thus, any error in not allowing amendment was harmless. See
Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 525
U.S. 865 (1998).
Garner also contends the Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal was premature
because there were ambiguities in the controlling substantive law
that should have been resolved in his favor. 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 that
Texas prisoners have no protected liberty interest in parole and,
therefore, cannot challenge the constitutionality of review
procedures attendant to parole decisions. See Johnson v.
Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 995
(1997).
As a Texas prisoner, Garner is precluded from complaining that
the procedures used to determine his parole eligibility were
unconstitutional. See id. at 308. Garner has therefore not stated
a claim upon which relief can be granted.
AFFIRMED
2