Boydston v. Kelley (Majority)

Annotate this Case
Justia Opinion Summary

The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's dismissal of Appellant's pro se complaint alleging constitutional violations of his right to due process and constitutional violations of the ex post facto prohibition in connection with the denial of his application for parole, holding that Appellant's sole claim on appeal was abandoned.

On appeal, Appellant argued for the first time that Appellees violated his right to equal protection because he had been treated differently from similarly situated inmates. The Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court's order dismissing Appellant's complaint, holding that because Appellant did not raise the argument below the issue could not be considered by this Court.

Download PDF
Cite as 2019 Ark. 316 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CV-18-414 Opinion Delivered November SHANNON BOYDSTON APPELLANT V. 7, 2019 PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 35CV-17-369] WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, CORRECTION; JOHN FELTS, JUDGE CHAIRMAN, ARKANSAS STATE PAROLE BOARD; IDA CABB; AFFIRMED. REQUISHA BROOKS; AND ANDY SHOCK APPELLEES JOHN DAN KEMP, Chief Justice Appellant Shannon Boydston appeals from the circuit court’s dismissal of a pro se complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging constitutional violations of the ex post facto prohibition and his right to due process in connection with the denial of his application for parole. Boydston sued the defendants in their official and individual capacities and requested a jury trial, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages. The circuit court dismissed Boydston’s complaint against separate defendant Wendy Kelley because Boydston failed to name Kelley in his complaint or to raise any allegations against Kelley within the body of his complaint. The remaining defendants were dismissed on the bases of insufficient service of process and for failing to state claims upon which relief could be granted. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. As his sole claim on appeal, Boydston raises for the first time that the appellees violated his right to equal protection in that he had been treated differently from similarly situated inmates. In his complaint, Boydston alleged that his Fourteenth Amendment rights had been violated but he failed to mention the equal-protection clause. It is well settled that this court does not address new arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Hall v. State, 2018 Ark. 319, 558 S.W.3d 867. Parties are bound by the scope and nature of their arguments raised below. Smith v. State, 2018 Ark. 277, 555 S.W.3d 881. Furthermore, Boydston does not reassert the claims made in his complaint with respect to the ex post facto prohibition and the denial of due process. Arguments that are raised below that are not reasserted on appeal are abandoned. Lane v. State, 2019 Ark. 5, 564 S.W.3d 524; Ramirez v. State, 2018 Ark. 32, 536 S.W.3d 614. As there are no issues that can be considered by this court, the circuit court’s order dismissing Boydston’s complaint is affirmed. Affirmed. Shannon Boydston, pro se appellant. Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Robert T. James, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee. 2