James Boone v. David Gutierrez, Chairman, Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
03-16-00259-CV
| Tex. App. | Jul 19, 2017Background
- James Boone, a Texas inmate serving a 75-year sentence (23 years served), sued the Chairman of the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles alleging the Board repeatedly denied or postponed parole consideration despite his in-prison achievements, violating due process and seeking injunctive relief.
- Boone acknowledged one major disciplinary infraction in 2011 that halted his parole review that year; otherwise he complained Board relied on the violent nature of his offense and criminal history.
- The Board moved to dismiss under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 91a (no basis in law or fact), arguing inmates have no protected liberty interest in parole.
- The district court granted the Rule 91a motion after a hearing and dismissed Boone’s suit; Boone, pro se, appealed.
- The appeals court reviewed the Rule 91a dismissal de novo and affirmed, concluding Boone’s claims lacked a legal basis because Texas law does not create a constitutional liberty interest in parole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1) Whether dismissal under Rule 91a was proper | Boone: Board’s parole denials/postponements violated his due-process rights | Gutierrez: Parole is discretionary; no protected liberty interest exists | Dismissal affirmed — no constitutional liberty interest in parole |
| 2) Whether 91a’s 45-day disposition rule required reversal | Boone: Court missed the 45-day deadline, so error | Gutierrez: Deadline is directory not mandatory | No reversible error — deadline is directory |
| 3) Whether Boone was entitled to default judgment before 91a ruling | Boone: Entitled to default because no answer was filed | Gutierrez: Rule 91a dismissal is proper and moots default claim | Moot/harmless; dismissal proper |
| 4) Whether denial of a new-trial hearing was erroneous | Boone: Court cancelled hearing on his new-trial motion, denying due process | Gutierrez: No factual issues raised that would require a hearing on a new-trial motion | No error — no factual dispute requiring a hearing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mansfield State Bank v. Cohn, 573 S.W.2d 181 (Tex. 1978) (pro se litigants held to same standards as represented parties)
- City of Dallas v. Sanchez, 494 S.W.3d 722 (Tex. 2016) (explaining Rule 91a legal/factual‑basis standards)
- Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765 (5th Cir. 1997) (parole in Texas is discretionary; no liberty interest)
- Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953 (5th Cir. 2000) (delay in parole consideration cannot support constitutional claim)
- Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 1997) (Texas prisoners lack protected liberty interest in parole)
- University of Tex. Med. Sch. at Hous. v. Than, 901 S.W.2d 926 (Tex. 1995) (Texas due-course-of-law clause parallels federal due-process analysis)
- Fleming v. State, 455 S.W.3d 577 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) (treating Texas due-course claims consistent with federal due process)