The opinion
Case: 25-50561 Document: 36-1 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/19/2026
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
No. 25-50561
Summary Calendar FILED
____________ February 19, 2026
Lyle W. Cayce
Nancy Jackson Spinks, Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Texas Board of Pardons & Paroles, Board Members,
Commissioners, and Presiding Officer, in their official capacity,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. 6:25-CV-226
______________________________
Before Stewart, Graves, and Oldham, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Nancy Jackson Spinks, Texas prisoner # 02173860, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint, in which she
challenged the constitutionality of Texas Government Code § 508.149(b)
and (d), for failure to state a claim. She argues that pursuant to state law,
§ 508.149(d) deprived her of her liberty interest in her accrued good time
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 25-50561 Document: 36-1 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/19/2026
No. 25-50561
credits without due process. She also argues that the district court abused its
discretion when it denied her motion to amend her complaint pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 and her motion for reconsideration
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). Finally, Spinks moves for
the appointment of counsel on appeal. That motion is DENIED.
We review dismissals for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b)(1) de novo, applying the same standard as when reviewing a
dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). DeMoss v. Crain,
636 F.3d 145, 152 (5th Cir. 2011). The record reflects that Spinks has been
denied release to mandatory supervision every year since 2021, and that she
has an upcoming review hearing scheduled for April 2026. Therefore, the
record belies her claims that she has been permanently barred from
consideration for release to mandatory supervision following her third denial
of such relief and that, by operation of § 508.149(d), her liberty interest in her
accrued good time credits has been constructively revoked without the
benefit of due process. See Teague v. Quarterman, 482 F.3d 769, 777 (5th Cir.
2007); Ex Parte Hill, 208 S.W.3d 462, 464-65 (Tex. Crim. App. 2006).
Because the complaint did not “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as
true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face,” the district court
did not err by dismissing that complaint for failure to state a claim. Ashcroft
v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quotation marks and citation
omitted).
In her amended complaint, Spinks did not set forth additional facts or
present any additional argument in support of her constitutional due process
challenge to § 508.149(d). See Stripling v. Jordan Prod. Co., LLC, 234 F.3d
863, 872-73 (5th Cir. 2000); Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Consequently, the district
court did not abuse its discretion by denying her motion to amend. See
Stripling, 234 F.3d at 872-73. Because Spinks’s motion for reconsideration
did not clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or present newly
2
Case: 25-50561 Document: 36-1 Page: 3 Date Filed: 02/19/2026
No. 25-50561
discovered evidence, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
it. See Advocare Int’l LP v. Horizon Lab’ys, Inc., 524 F.3d 679, 690-91 (5th
Cir. 2008). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
3