Jerry Francis v. James LeBlanc

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
• Decided: April 24, 2019
• Docket: 18-30623
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

Case: 18-30623 Document: 00514928623 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/24/2019

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit

FILED No. 18-30623 April 24, 2019 Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce Clerk JERRY PAUL FRANCIS,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JAMES M. LEBLANC, SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND CORRECTIONS; SHERYL RANATZA, The Committee on Parole and Pardon Board, Chairperson,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana USDC No. 3:15-CV-411

Before SMITH, WIENER, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jerry Paul Francis, Louisiana prisoner # 86386, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as legally frivolous and for failure to state a claim. The district court dismissed without prejudice to Francis’s right to reassert his claims in a federal habeas corpus proceeding after exhausting available state court remedies. On appeal, Francis argues

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. Case: 18-30623 Document: 00514928623 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/24/2019

No. 18-30623

that (1) the Louisiana Parole and Pardon Board’s denial of parole contravened Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010), and Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012), and (2) his challenge is cognizable under § 1983. We review the dismissal de novo. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). Because the Louisiana Parole and Pardon Board determined that Francis was eligible for parole and provided him with some meaningful opportunity to obtain release, he has not shown a violation under Graham and Miller. See Graham, 560 U.S. at 75. As his complaint was frivolous on this ground, it was properly subject to dismissal under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and 1915A(b)(1). See Morris v. McAllester, 702 F.3d 187, 189 (5th Cir. 2012). We therefore do not need to consider the district court’s alternative basis for dismissal. See Sojourner T. v. Edwards, 974 F.2d 27, 30 (5th Cir. 1992). Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.