IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-40809
Conference Calendar
FORREST LEE STOKES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UIRANNAH L. LOVELY; JOSEPH M. SMITH, Senior Warden;
DAWN A. WILLIAMSON, Assistant Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:02-CV-58
--------------------
December 11, 2002
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and JONES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Forrest Lee Stokes, Texas prisoner # 1062181, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. Stokes argues that
the above listed prison officials took his watch upon his
transfer into the Larry Gist State Jail in violation of prison
policy and his constitutional due process right.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-40809
-2-
As correctly determined by the district court, the
intentional, unauthorized deprivation of property caused by the
state officials does not infringe constitutional due process
rights of a prisoner provided that adequate state post-
deprivation remedies exist. Murphy v. Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543
(5th Cir. 1994); Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 (1984)). Such
post-deprivation remedies exist in Texas. TEX. GOV’T CODE
§§ 501.007, 501.008 (Vernon 1998); Aguilar v. Chastain,
923 S.W.2d 740, 743-44 (Tex. App. 1996).
The district court’s dismissal of Stokes’s complaint was
correct. Stokes’s appeal lacks arguable merit and is DISMISSED
AS FRIVOLOUS. See 5TH CIR. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219- 20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of his appeal as
frivolous and the district court’s dismissal count as two strikes
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Stokes is warned that if
he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed IFP in any civil
action or appeal while he is incarcerated in any facility unless
he is in imminent danger of serious physical injury. See id.
Stokes’s motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982).
APPEAL DISMISSED. THREE-STRIKES WARNING GIVEN. MOTION FOR
APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED.