IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-10886
Conference Calendar
SCOTT WADE HOPKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CHARLES BELL, Warden; JOE NUNN, Assistant Warden;
JO MATTIZA, LMIV,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:02-CV-154
--------------------
February 19, 2003
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Scott Wade Hopkins, Texas prisoner # 639277, appeals the
dismissal his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and for
failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e) and 1915A.
Specifically, Hopkins alleges that defendant Mattiza acted with
deliberate indifference by forcing him to work during his 2002
Spring Break from classes he attends in prison. Hopkins asserts
that Mattiza failed to follow prison procedures when completing
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-10886
-2-
his work schedule, and that defendants Bell and Nunn failed to
discipline Mattiza for her alleged procedural infraction.
To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Hopkins must
demonstrate a violation of his rights secured by the Constitution
or laws of the United States committed by a person acting under
color of state law. See Leffall v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist., 28
F.3d 521, 525 (5th Cir. 1994). Hopkins does not have a
constitutional right to a vacation from the classes he attends in
prison. Furthermore, the failure of prison officials to follow
their own policies does not, without more, constitute a
constitutional violation. Myers v. Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94
(5th Cir. 1996). Accordingly, Hopkins’ appeal is DISMISSED as
frivolous, and his motion for the appointment of counsel is
DENIED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Hopkins is cautioned that the district court’s dismissal of
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous, and this court’s
dismissal of the appeal as frivolous, both count as “strikes”
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Hopkins is advised 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).