Case: 11-20838 Document: 00511924992 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/18/2012
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
July 18, 2012
No. 11-20838
Summary Calendar Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
RAMIRO GUERRA BOCANEGRA, SR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
OLIVER BELL; RISSIE OWENS; BRAD LIVINGSTON; STUART JENKINS;
KEITH WARREN; MARIA WOLSKY; URSULA CLARK; GEORGE C ZOLEY;
BEN REID, JR.; JORGE DOMINCIS; ERIC PIERSON; BRIAN JEFFREY;
TAMRILYN SIMIEM; JOHN ONTIVARAS; ROBERT MCKNIGHT,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:11-CV-2700
Before BENAVIDES, STEWART, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ramiro Guerra Bocanegra, Sr., former Texas prisoner # 831945, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state
a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). In his complaint, he alleged
that although he had been granted “liberty parole,” he was being wrongfully
*
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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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.
Case: 11-20838 Document: 00511924992 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/18/2012
No. 11-20838
confined to a halfway house without due process or equal protection of the law.
He contended that by placing him in a halfway house, the defendants forced him
to endure prison-like conditions, deprived him of employment, and required that
he perform forced labor. Bocanegra’s motion for judicial notice, in which he
advises that he is challenging the constitutionality of the Prison Litigation
Reform Act and the exhaustion requirement for a habeas corpus petition, is
GRANTED.
As an initial matter, Bocanegra has not shown that the district court
clearly abused its discretion in denying his request for the appointment of
counsel. See Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir. 1987); Ulmer v. Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982). Also, to the extent that Bocanegra attempts
to raise claims relating to religious freedom and his access to the courts, he did
not raise these claims in the district court, and they will not be considered for
the first time on appeal. See Sama v. Hannigan, 669 F.3d 585, 590 & n.7 (5th
Cir. 2012).
We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) using the same standard applicable to dismissals pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34
(5th Cir. 1998). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain
sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is
plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
With regard to his argument that the defendants violated his due process
rights by placing him in a halfway house, Bocanegra fails to state a claim for
relief because he does not show that the condition was stigmatizing or invasive.
See Meza v. Livingston, 607 F.3d 392, 401 (5th Cir. 2010). Moreover, a prisoner
does not have a constitutional right to be housed in a particular facility. See
Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995); see also Olim v. Wakinekona,
461 U.S. 238, 244-45 (1983).
2
Case: 11-20838 Document: 00511924992 Page: 3 Date Filed: 07/18/2012
No. 11-20838
Bocanegra’s argument that the defendants interfered with his ability to
obtain employment is belied by the record; his parole activity sheets reflect that
he was allowed to leave the halfway house in search of employment and
otherwise received “job assistance.” His allegations with regard to being “forced”
into “free labor” are conclusional, unsupported, and thus do not warrant relief.
See Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990). Insofar as Bocanegra
alleges an equal protection violation, his vague and unsubstantiated allegations
that his equal protection rights have been violated are insufficient to raise a
constitutional claim. See Pedraza v. Meyer, 919 F.2d 317, 318 n.1 (5th Cir.
1990). Lastly, any assertion that state rules and regulations were broken in
connection with Bocanegra’s parole does not state a constitutional claim. See
Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1252 (5th Cir. 1989). Because Bocanegra failed
to allege a constitutional violation, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of
his § 1983 claims for failure to state a claim. See Johnson v. Dallas Indep. Sch.
Dist., 38 F.3d 198, 204 (5th Cir. 1994).
MOTION GRANTED; AFFIRMED.
3