IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40245
Summary Calendar
RAUL LIRA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KERRY BIRDWELL, School Principal;
BILLIE FITTS, Vocational Instructor;
J. BULLOCK, School Counselor;
ROBERT HERRERA, Assistant Warden, Michael Unit;
MIKE MORROW, Superintendent,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:99-CV-590
- - - - - - - - - -
September 28, 2000
Before SMITH, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Raul Lira appeals the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil
rights complaint, which was dismissed as frivolous and for failure
to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b). Lira alleged that the defendants wrongfully removed
him from his prison job, denied him admission to a vocational
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 00-40245
-2-
training program, and denied him parole eligibility. Lira argues
that the district court used the wrong legal standard. He asserts
that his claims arise under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protec-
tion and Due Process Clauses rather than under the Eighth
Amendment. He reasserts that his parole eligibility has been
adversely affected because the defendants denied him access to
vocational training.
Lira has filed a motion to supplement the record. This motion
is DENIED. See United States v. Flores, 887 F.2d 543, 546 (5th
Cir. 1989). In his § 1983 complaint, Lira alleged that he was
wrongfully terminated from prison employment. He fails to argue
the issue in his brief on appeal; therefore, the claim is
abandoned. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993). In the Eighth Amendment context, this court has held that
the state has no constitutional obligation to provide basic
educational or vocational training to prisoners. Beck v. Lynaugh,
842 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir. 1988); Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283,
292 (5th Cir. 1977). Although Lira argues that the district court
should have addressed this claim under the Equal Protection and Due
Process Clauses, he has failed to state a claim for relief under
the Fourteenth Amendment. Lira’s complaint failed to state an
equal protection claim, because he did not allege that he was
treated differently from similarly situated prisoners or that the
defendants interfered with a fundamental right. See Hatten v.
Rains, 854 F.2d 687, 690 (5th Cir. 1988); Brennan v. Stewart, 834
F.2d 1248, 1257 (5th Cir. 1988). Lira also has failed to state a
due process claim relating to his vocational training and its
No. 00-40245
-3-
affect on parole eligibility. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953,
957 (5th Cir. 2000)(holding that Texas prisoners have no
constitutional expectancy of parole sufficient to support due
process claim); Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir.
1997)(holding that Texas prisoners do not have a protected liberty
interest in parole). Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.
The dismissal counts as a strike against Lira for purposes of
28 U.S.C. § 1915. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th
Cir. 1996). If Lira accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed
in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g). Lira is cau-
tioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not
raise frivolous issues.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.