United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT June 21, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-41339
Conference Calendar
ARTURO DELGADILLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TEXAS VIOLENT GANG TASK FORCE; TEXAS INTELLIGENCE
MONITORING; TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS AND PAROLES;
DOUG DRETKE, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTIONS DIVISION; UNKNOWN PARTIES,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:04-CV-338
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Arturo Delgadillo, Texas prisoner # 373936, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous. Delgadillo’s claims that he is being harmed by
electroconvulsive treatments, laser rays, and other forms of
radiation through computer monitoring as part of the Gang
Renouncement and Disassociation (GRAD) Process are frivolous; the
district court was not required to accept Delgadillo’s fanciful
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-41339
-2-
claims as true. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33
(1992). His claim that the parole denial notice given to him
violates his constitutional rights is based on conclusory
allegations and fails to allege a meritorious constitutional
claim. See Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 307-08 (5th Cir.
1997).
As Delgadillo’s appeal is without any arguable merit, we
DISMISS it as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220
(5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. We caution Delgadillo that the
dismissal by the district court and the dismissal of this appeal
as frivolous each counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385-87 (5th Cir. 1996).
If Delgadillo accumulates three strikes under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP 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).
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.