IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-20801
Conference Calendar
FRANCISCO GONZALEZ; ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
FRANCISCO GONZALEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JAMES R. ZELLOR; PHONE
OPERATORS/SECRETARIES; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE -
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-00-CV-715
--------------------
August 20, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Francisco Gonzalez, Texas prisoner # 619811, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous. Gonzalez argues that the defendants violated his
constitutional rights when visitation periods with family members
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-20801
-2-
were shortened and that inmates in administrative segregation
received different visitation privileges than inmates in the
prison’s general population.
A district court may dismiss an in forma pauperis complaint
as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it lacks an
arguable basis either in law or in fact. Siglar v. Hightower,
112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997). Gonzalez’ arguments that the
defendants violated his due process and equal protection rights
lacked an arguable basis in law. Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504,
508 (5th Cir. 1999) (prisoners do not have a constitutional right
to visitation privileges); Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580
(5th Cir. 1998) (inmates with different housing classifications
are not similarly situated). The district court’s dismissal of
Gonzalez’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims, as well as his state law
claims which were based upon the same assertions, was not an
abuse of discretion.
Gonzalez’ appeal lacks arguable merit, see Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983), and is therefore dismissed
as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s
dismissal of his suit counts as a strike under the Prison
Litigation Reform Act, as does this court’s dismissal of this
appeal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.
1996); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Gonzalez is hereby warned that if he
accumulates three "strikes" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) he will not
be able to proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or
No. 01-20801
-3-
appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility
unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.