Shannon Boydston v. Wendy Kelley, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction; John Felts, Chairman, Arkansas State Parole Board; Ida Cabb; Requisha Brooks; And Andy Shock

2019 Ark. 316

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: November 7, 2019
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2019 Ark. 316 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-18-414

Opinion Delivered November 7, 2019 SHANNON BOYDSTON APPELLANT PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE V. JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, [NO. 35CV-17-369] ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION; JOHN FELTS, HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, CHAIRMAN, ARKANSAS STATE JUDGE PAROLE BOARD; IDA CABB; REQUISHA BROOKS; AND ANDY AFFIRMED. SHOCK APPELLEES

JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice

Appellant Shannon Boydston appeals from the circuit court’s dismissal of a pro se

complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations of the ex

post facto prohibition and his right to due process in connection with the denial of his

application for parole. Boydston sued the defendants in their official and individual

capacities and requested a jury trial, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages. The

circuit court dismissed Boydston’s complaint against separate defendant Wendy Kelley

because Boydston failed to name Kelley in his complaint or to raise any allegations against

Kelley within the body of his complaint. The remaining defendants were dismissed on the

bases of insufficient service of process and for failing to state claims upon which relief

could be granted. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. As his sole claim on appeal, Boydston raises for the first time that the appellees

violated his right to equal protection in that he had been treated differently from similarly

situated inmates. In his complaint, Boydston alleged that his Fourteenth Amendment

rights had been violated but he failed to mention the equal-protection clause. It is well

settled that this court does not address new arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

Hall v. State, 2018 Ark. 319, 558 S.W.3d 867. Parties are bound by the scope and nature

of their arguments raised below. Smith v. State, 2018 Ark. 277, 555 S.W.3d 881.

Furthermore, Boydston does not reassert the claims made in his complaint with respect to

the ex post facto prohibition and the denial of due process. Arguments that are raised

below that are not reasserted on appeal are abandoned. Lane v. State, 2019 Ark. 5, 564

S.W.3d 524; Ramirez v. State, 2018 Ark. 32, 536 S.W.3d 614. As there are no issues that

can be considered by this court, the circuit court’s order dismissing Boydston’s complaint

is affirmed.

Affirmed.

Shannon Boydston, pro se appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Robert T. James, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.