IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40489
Conference Calendar
AUTRY VAUGHN, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLE; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF
CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-01-CV-576
--------------------
August 21, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Autry Vaughn, Jr., Texas prisoner # 929616, appeals from the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. He first argues that
the district court abused its discretion in declining
jurisdiction over his pendent state law claims. We hold that
despite the fact that the state law claims may not have involved
complex issues, judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40489
-2-
the parties do not point toward a conclusion that the district
court should have exercised jurisdiction over the pendent claims.
Cf. Batiste v. Island Records, Inc., 179 F.3d 217, 227-28 (5th
Cir. 1999). Therefore, there was no abuse of discretion. See
Morris v. Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc., 277 F.3d 743, 755 n.12 (5th
Cir. 2001).
Vaughn also argues that the Texas parole statute creates a
liberty interest in parole, therefore allowing him to challenge
the constitutionality of its procedural devices. We have
repeatedly held, however, that the Texas statutes and regulations
do not create a constitutionally protected liberty interest in
parole. See Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71, 74 (5th Cir. 1995);
Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 32 (5th Cir. 1995). The district
court therefore did not err in determining that he failed to
state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Harris v.
Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).
Vaughn further argues that the magistrate judge erred in
striking his second, third, fourth, and fifth amended complaints;
in denying him leave to amend his complaint; and in denying his
motion for reconsideration. Vaughn did not appeal the magistrate
judge’s orders striking these pleadings or denying the motions
complained of to the district court; thus, we are without
jurisdiction to consider them. See Colburn v. Bunge Towing,
Inc., 883 F.2d 372, 378 (5th Cir. 1989).
No. 02-40489
-3-
Vaughn’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore
dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Vaughn is warned
that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in addition to the strike
for the district court’s dismissal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996) (holding dismissals as frivolous in
the district courts and the court of appeals count as strikes for
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) purposes). We caution Vaughn that once he
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 under imminent danger of
serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.