Whitley v. LeBlanc, 20-30562

Marshall Whitley, Louisiana prisoner (convicted of armed robbery in April 1997), sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming due-process and ex post facto violations.
He alleged Act 624 was applied ex post facto to deny parole eligibility based on his armed-robbery conviction.
He also claimed a liberty interest in “geriatric parole” under Act 790, asserting it should apply retroactively.
The district court dismissed the § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), finding Whitley was not eligible for geriatric parole under the law in effect when he committed the offense and that Louisiana law creates no constitutional liberty interest in parole.
Whitley sought leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal and challenged the district court’s certification that the appeal was not taken in good faith.
The Fifth Circuit concluded Whitley failed to raise any nonfrivolous issue, denied IFP, and dismissed the appeal as frivolous.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Ex post facto application of Act 624 to deny parole eligibility	Act 624 was applied retroactively to deny parole; this violates ex post facto protections	Under the law when Whitley committed the offense (1997), he was not eligible for parole consideration; no ex post facto violation	Denied — no ex post facto violation because Whitley was not parole-eligible under the law in effect at the time of the offense
Geriatric parole entitlement under Act 790	Act 790 should apply prospectively and retroactively to afford geriatric parole consideration	Act 790 did not create a protected liberty interest; Whitley was not eligible under the law at the time of offense	Denied — Louisiana law does not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest in parole; Whitley not eligible for parole consideration
IFP / good-faith certification on appeal	Whitley contends the appeal raises arguable legal points and should proceed IFP	District court certified the appeal was not taken in good faith because claims are frivolous	Denied — appeal frivolous; IFP denied and appeal dismissed

Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197 (5th Cir. 1997) (standard for determining good-faith IFP appeals)
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215 (5th Cir. 1983) (frivolous-appeal inquiry: whether legal issues are arguable on the merits)
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972) (pro se filings are liberally construed)
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523 (5th Cir. 1995) (pro se litigants must still brief issues and comply with Rule 28)
Brinkmann v. Dallas Cnty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744 (5th Cir. 1987) (arguments inadequately briefed are abandoned)
Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 (1987) (no federal constitutional liberty interest in parole release)