IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-50396
Summary Calendar
STEVEN LEE GREGORY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HILL COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;
BRENT BUTTON, Sheriff; KEVIN DAVIS,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
(No. W-01-CV-265)
_________________________________________________________________
October 25, 2002
Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Steven Lee Gregory, Texas prisoner # 849097, appeals, pro se,
the dismissal, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 action because he fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted. Gregory contends defendants violated his civil
rights by failing to investigate burglaries of his house or arrest
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
a suspect for them. A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is reviewed de novo.
E.g., Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 740 (5th Cir. 2002).
The Due Process Clause does not require the State to protect
the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by
private actors. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social
Servs., 489 U.S. 189, 195 (1989). Further, Gregory has not shown
an exception to this general rule based on a special relationship.
See Walton v. Alexander, 44 F.3d 1297, 1299-1304 (5th Cir. 1995)
(en banc); Johnson v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 38 F.3d 198, 200
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1017 (1995).
Gregory also contends defendants violated his equal protection
rights by failing to investigate the burglaries or arrest a suspect
because Gregory is incarcerated. Because Gregory has not alleged
that he was treated differently from similarly situated individuals
or that the unequal treatment was based on the defendants’
discriminatory intent, he has not alleged sufficient facts to state
an equal protection claim. See Taylor v. Johnson, 257 F.3d 470,
473 (5th Cir. 2001).
Gregory’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Because it is frivolous, the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH
CIR. R. 42.2. Gregory is advised that the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim and the
dismissal of this appeal both count as strikes under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 395 (5th Cir.
1996). Gregory is advised that, if he receives one more strike, he
may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal
while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is
in imminent danger of serious physical injury.
DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED
3