Case: 20-30344 Document: 00515847428 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/04/2021
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
May 4, 2021
No. 20-30344
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
Carson Wayne Thomas,
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
James M. LeBlanc, Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Safety and
Corrections,
Defendant—Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 3:18-CV-496
Before Clement, Elrod, and Haynes, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam:*
Carson Wayne Thomas, Louisiana prisoner # 392537, moves for leave
to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the dismissal of his 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could
be granted. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In his complaint, Thomas
*
Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.
Case: 20-30344 Document: 00515847428 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/04/2021
No. 20-30344
asserted that his due process rights were violated because he had a liberty
interest in consideration for “geriatric parole” under “Act 790” and his
parole hearing was cancelled and not rescheduled. The district court
determined that, under the law in effect when Thomas committed armed
robbery, he was never eligible for geriatric parole and had to serve 85 percent
of the sentence imposed before becoming eligible.
By moving to appeal IFP, Thomas challenges the district court’s
certification that his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor,
117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir. 1997). His IFP request “must be directed solely
to the trial court’s reasons for the certification decision,” id., and our inquiry
“is limited to whether the appeal involves legal points arguable on their
merits (and therefore not frivolous).” Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th
Cir. 1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We may dismiss
the appeal if it is apparent that it would be meritless. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
n.24; see 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
Thomas’s counseled brief inadequately addresses the district court’s
conclusion that he failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted
because his armed robbery conviction precluded eligibility for the parole he
sought. See Fed. R. App. P. 28(a)(8)(A). We deem issues not adequately
briefed to be abandoned. Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813
F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987); Beasley v. McCotter, 798 F.2d 116, 118 (5th Cir.
1986).
Even so, Thomas is unable to demonstrate a nonfrivolous appellate
issue. A parole system by itself “does not give rise to a constitutionally
protected liberty interest in parole release.” Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482
U.S. 369, 373 (1987). Our unpublished authority, which we find persuasive,
see Ballard v. Burton, 444 F.3d 391, 401 & n.7 (5th Cir. 2006), holds that
Louisiana prisoners do not have a liberty interest in parole that is protected
2
Case: 20-30344 Document: 00515847428 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/04/2021
No. 20-30344
by the Due Process Clause, see Bastida v. LeBlanc, 372 F. App’x 443, 444 (5th
Cir. 2010); Stevenson v. Louisiana Bd. of Parole, No. 01-30252, 2001 WL
872887 at *1-2 (5th Cir. July 11, 2001) (unpublished).
Because Thomas fails to show that his appeal involves any
nonfrivolous issue, his motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED, and this
appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard, 707 F.2d at 220; Baugh,
117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
3