United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 20, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-41389
Conference Calendar
THEODORE FLANAGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 9:03-CV-172
--------------------
Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Theodore Flanagan, Texas inmate #734335, appeals the
district court’s dismissal as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915A(b) of his pro se and in forma pauperis (“IFP”) civil
rights complaint. Flanagan asserts that the district court
abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint without
allowing him to conduct discovery. Flanagan reiterates his
contention that Assistant Attorneys General Jeremy T. Hackman and
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-41389
-2-
S. Michael Bozarth perpetrated a fraud against the district court
and this court by filing responses in the proceedings conducted
on Flanagan’s federal habeas petition although they had not taken
and filed anti-bribery statements and oaths of office as required
by the Texas Constitution.
We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s
dismissal as frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A of Flanagan’s 42
U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580
(5th Cir. 1998).
Flanagan has not established that Hackman and Bozarth were
required to take and file the oaths at issue. Flanagan has not
challenged the district court’s conclusion that the lack of proof
of the filing of the oaths at issue falls short of establishing
that Hackman and Bozarth did not take the required oaths.
Flanagan’s failure to identify error in the district court’s
analysis is the same as if he had not appealed the judgment. See
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Furthermore, a violation of state law, standing alone, does
not establish a violation of federal constitutional law.
Giovanni v. Lynn, 48 F.3d 908, 912-13 (5th Cir. 1995). Flanagan
has not explained how the conduct of which he complains entitled
him to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Flanagan’s appeal is without arguable merit and is DISMISSED
as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
No. 03-41389
-3-
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The district court’s dismissal of
Flanagan’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and the
dismissal of the instant appeal as frivolous count as two strikes
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 385-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Previously, Flanagan
accumulated a strike in Flanagan v. Nacogdoches County Jail, No.
97-41082 (5th Cir. Jul. 29, 1998). See Adepegba, 103 F.3d at
387. Flanagan thus has accumulated at least three strikes and is
subject to the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) bar.
Accordingly, Flanagan 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. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR
IMPOSED.