Ducksworth v. Banks, 2:17-cv-00015

Michael Ducksworth pleaded guilty in 1989 to two counts of murder and one count of burglary and received two consecutive life sentences (run concurrently) plus five years for burglary; parole eligibility calculated to August 2008.
Ducksworth does not challenge his convictions or sentences; he challenges denial(s) of parole (denied in 2009, 2012, and 2016) as violating due process and equal protection.
Co-defendant Ozia Booth was paroled in 2009; Ducksworth alleges unequal treatment (and later suggests a race-based disparity against him vis-à-vis an unnamed white inmate).
Respondent moved to dismiss arguing Ducksworth failed to state a constitutional claim and that some parole-denial claims may be unexhausted or time-barred; state appellate courts previously rejected related post-conviction claims.
The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the §2254 petition because Ducksworth lacks a cognizable due process interest in parole, his equal protection allegations are conclusory/insufficient, and the race-based claim was not presented to state courts (unexhausted and procedurally barred).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether denial of parole violated due process	Ducksworth: parole denials deprived him of liberty without due process	Banks: Mississippi law makes parole discretionary; no protected liberty interest	Denied — no protected liberty interest in discretionary parole (no due process claim)
Whether parole denial violated equal protection (comparative outcome vs. Booth)	Ducksworth: treated differently than similarly situated co-defendant Booth	Banks: disparate individual outcomes alone do not state an equal protection violation; Board gave rational reasons	Denied — mere inconsistent outcomes don’t state a claim; Board’s reasons satisfy rational-basis review
Whether race-based equal protection claim (unnamed white inmate) states a claim	Ducksworth (in response): alleges race-based denial favoring a white inmate	Banks: claim was not pleaded in state court, is conclusory, and lacks identifying facts	Denied/Procedurally barred — conclusory, insufficient to plead, and unexhausted in state court
Whether habeas claims are exhausted and/or time-barred	Ducksworth: seeks federal review of parole denials	Banks: some denials unexhausted or time-barred; race claim not presented to state appellate review	Court finds race claim unexhausted (procedural bar); did not fully address time-bar issues for 2009/2012 denials due to briefing gaps

Wansley v. Miss. Dep’t of Corr., 769 F.3d 309 (5th Cir. 2014) (mandatory parole creates a liberty interest; discretionary parole does not)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (legal conclusions and conclusory pleadings insufficient to state a claim)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
Scales v. Miss. State Parole Bd., 831 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1987) (Mississippi parole statute does not create a protected liberty interest)
McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (1961) (rational-basis review permits upholding state classifications if any conceivable justification exists)
Heller v. Doe, 509 U.S. 312 (1993) (plaintiff bears burden to negate every conceivable rational basis)
Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722 (1991) (cause-and-prejudice and miscarriage-of-justice exceptions to procedural default)
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (gateway actual-innocence standard to overcome procedural default)