IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40939
Conference Calendar
CURTIS SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WAYNE SCOTT; GERALD GARRETT:
JIM GARCIA,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:00-CV-351
--------------------
February 14, 2001
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Curtis Smith (Smith), Texas prisoner #609841, appeals the
district court's dismissal of his civil rights action as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) and (ii). Smith argues that his due process
rights were violated because he has not received notice of his
parole review date or, if that date has been delayed, the
rescheduled parole review date. As Smith has failed to argue
that he should be segregated from the general prison population
or that the disciplinary cases he received for failing to shave
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 00-40939
-2-
violated his First Amendment rights, these issues have been
abandoned. Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.
1993) (issues not briefed on appeal are abandoned).
As noted in Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 31 (5th Cir.
1995), an inmate such as Smith has no liberty interest in
obtaining parole in Texas, and so he has no claim for violation
of due process in the procedures attendant to parole decisions.
Id. Smith's due process argument is also precluded by the
language of Title 37 Texas Administrative Code § 145.3(2) as
Smith has repeatedly received major disciplinary cases for
failing to comply with prison grooming standards and because his
classification has been reduced to the "medium custody level."
Smith's appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5th Cir.
R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal and the district court's
dismissal of this lawsuit as frivolous constitute two strikes for
purposes of the § 1915(g) bar. Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d
383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Previously, the district court
dismissed another civil rights action as frivolous. See Smith v.
Price, No. 6:99cv158 (E.D. Tex. July 21, 1999). As Smith has
accumulated three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil
action or appeal brought in a United States court while he is
incarcerated unless he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. See § 1915(g).
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION ISSUED.