The opinion
Cite as 2019 Ark. 316
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CV-18-414
Opinion Delivered November 7, 2019
SHANNON BOYDSTON
APPELLANT
PRO SE APPEAL FROM THE
V. JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT
COURT
WENDY KELLEY, DIRECTOR, [NO. 35CV-17-369]
ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTION; JOHN FELTS, HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS,
CHAIRMAN, ARKANSAS STATE JUDGE
PAROLE BOARD; IDA CABB;
REQUISHA BROOKS; AND ANDY AFFIRMED.
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