IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-10849
Conference Calendar
ROQUE T. ARANDA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JON KEY, Gaines County Sheriff; RICKY B. SMITH, District
Attorney; GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; BOARD OF PARDONS
AND PAROLES,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:00-CV-198-C
--------------------
February 14, 2001
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roque T. Aranda, Texas prisoner # 805045, appeals the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint in which he alleged
that his sentence had been improperly enhanced by the use of
unauthenticated prior conviction records and that the Texas Board
of Pardons and Paroles was improperly using those prior
conviction records against him.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-10849
-2-
Aranda’s claim that his sentence was improperly enhanced is
not cognizable because neither his conviction nor his sentence
has been invalidated. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 487
(1994).
Aranda’s claim against the Texas Board of Pardons and
Paroles is also without merit. Since, in Texas, it is entirely
speculative whether an inmate will actually obtain parole, there
is no constitutional expectancy of parole. Madison v. Parker,
104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997). Because Aranda cannot show
the violation of a clearly established constitutional right to
parole, his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim must fail. See West v.
Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (U.S. 1988).
Aranda’s appeal is without arguable merit. See Howard v.
King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983). It is DISMISSED. See
5th Cir. R. 42.2.
The three-strikes provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
“prohibits a prisoner from proceeding IFP if he has had three
actions or appeals dismissed for frivolousness, maliciousness, or
failure to state a claim.” Carson v. Johnson, 112 F.3d 818, 819
(5th Cir. 1997) (citing Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385
(5th Cir. 1996)). Aranda has previously had at least one strike
against him. Aranda v. Millsaps, No. 99-11394 (5th Cir. Aug. 29,
2000). Aranda has acquired another two strikes as a result of
this frivolous complaint and appeal. See Adepegba, 103 F. 3d at
386-88. Additionally, Aranda today accumulates two more strikes
in another appeal before this court. Aranda v. Shaw, No. 00-
10844. He now has at least five strikes. Accordingly, Aranda
No. 00-10849
-3-
may no longer proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed
while he is in prison unless he is under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; ALL OUTSTANDING MOTIONS DENIED; 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.