Joe Adam Ramirez and Frederick Q. Herrod v. Rissie Owens and Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles, 07-15-00152-CV

Background

Appellants Joe Adam Ramirez and Frederick Q. Herrod, pro se inmates proceeding in forma pauperis, sued Rissie Owens and the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles (TBPP) for declaratory, equitable, and monetary relief.
Plaintiffs alleged TBPP failed to enact policies under Tex. Gov’t Code § 508.144 and thereby deprived them of due process by creating a "defeasible liberty interest" in parole.
TBPP moved to dismiss under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a on the ground the claims lacked a basis in law or fact; the trial court granted the motion.
The appellate court reviewed only the pleadings and attached exhibits (Rule 91a limits) and construed allegations liberally in plaintiffs’ favor.
The first amended complaint contained conclusory allegations but no factual description of the TBPP policies, how those policies created a liberty interest, or how statutes § 508.1411/508.144 were violated.
The court affirmed dismissal because plaintiffs failed to plead facts a reasonable person could believe or to show legal entitlement to relief, and they did not explain why precedent recognizing no parole liberty interest did not control.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs have a protected liberty interest in parole created by TBPP policies	TBPP policies (under § 508.144) created a "defeasible liberty interest" entitling them to procedural due process	Texas law and precedent hold inmates have no protected liberty interest in parole; plaintiffs failed to plead factual support	Held: No basis — plaintiffs failed to plead facts showing a protected liberty interest; precedent bars such a claim
Whether TBPP violated § 508.144 by adopting/implementing unlawful policies	TBPP’s policies allegedly contravened statutory requirements for parole guidelines and procedures	Plaintiffs did not describe the policies or attach them; pleadings lack factual allegations showing statutory violation	Held: No basis — pleadings contain no factual description or exhibits to show any statutory transgression
Whether TBPP’s procedures violated separation-of-powers by overriding statutes	Plaintiffs claimed TBPP policies overrode/amended §§ 508.1411 and 508.144, implicating separation-of-powers concerns	Plaintiffs failed to identify or attach the challenged policies or explain how delegation limits were exceeded	Held: No basis — plaintiffs did not explain how TBPP exceeded lawful delegation or exercised another branch’s power
Whether dismissal under Tex. R. Civ. P. 91a was improper given plaintiffs’ pauper status and procedural posture	Plaintiffs argued on appeal trial court erred in dismissing their claims	Defendants invoked Rule 91a; court noted Rule 91a does not apply to pauper prisoner suits but appellate review is limited to assigned errors and pleadings	Held: Dismissal affirmed — even though Rule 91a may not apply to pauper prisoner suits, appellants failed to show error based on the pleadings; appellate court cannot raise unassigned error

Key Cases Cited

Wooley v. Schaffer, 447 S.W.3d 71 (Tex. App. — Houston [14th Dist.] 2014) (pleadings construed liberally for Rule 91a review)
Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299 (5th Cir.) (Texas inmates have no protected liberty interest in parole)
Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71 (5th Cir.) (no due-process protected liberty interest in parole under Texas law)
Martin v. State Bd. of Criminal Justice, 60 S.W.3d 226 (Tex. App. — Corpus Christi 2001) (citing lack of parole liberty interest)
Alford v. Dallas, 738 S.W.2d 312 (Tex. App. — Dallas 1987) (property interest arises from rules or mutually explicit understandings)
General Servs. Comm. v. Little-Tex. Insulation Co., 39 S.W.3d 591 (Tex. 2001) (separation-of-powers principle)
Oxford v. Hill, 558 S.W.2d 557 (Tex. Civ. App. — Austin 1977) (legislature may delegate authority to administrative agencies to carry out statutes)
Pat Baker Co. v. Wilson, 971 S.W.2d 447 (Tex. 1998) (appellate court cannot reverse on unassigned error)
Cire v. Cummings, 134 S.W.3d 835 (Tex. 2004) (discussing discovery sanctions; cited for contrast on evidentiary/dismissal procedure)