John Conditt v. Rissie Owens, 457 F. App'x 420

Conditt, a Texas prisoner, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint alleging Texas parole review procedures violated his rights.
The district court dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim; the Fifth Circuit reviews de novo.
The court holds Texas prisoners have no protected liberty interest in parole, foreclosing procedural or substantive due process challenges to parole review.
Conditt contends wealthier prisoners with parole consultants receive more favorable reviews, claiming an equal protection violation.
Conditt argued that the district court failed to address seizure of documentary evidence and his request for class action status; he did not name the supervisor or pursue class certification.
The court rejects these arguments, noting the dismissal on the merits mooted class certification and there was no prejudice from a Spears hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Parole due process liberty interest	Conditt argues due process was violated by parole review.	Board argues no protected liberty interest in parole exists.	No due process claim; no protected liberty interest in parole.
Equal protection for parole consultants	Conditt alleges wealthier prisoners receive favorable reviews via consultants.	Board contends no disparate treatment; no classification of wealthy versus poor prisoners.	No valid equal protection claim.
Class action and evidentiary seizure	Conditt claims district court failed to address seizure of documents and requested class action status.	No named supervisor; no viable class action; merits-based dismissal moots class certification.	Dismissal affirmed; motions for class certification and appointment denied.

Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299 (5th Cir. 1997) (no protected liberty interest in parole)
Lampton v. Diaz, 639 F.3d 223 (5th Cir. 2011) (de novo review of Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179 (5th Cir. 1985) (Spears hearing not required; no prejudice shown)
Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053 (5th Cir. 1998) (Spears-related issues; lack of prejudice)