Soliz v. Hassett , 71 F. App'x 331 ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT August 4, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-40170
Summary Calendar
JESSE JESUS SOLIZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
NANNETT HASSETT; JERRY BATEK; JOHN GILMORE; LINDA HARRISON; OSCAR
SOLIZ; PATRICK MCGUIRE; LARRY OLIVAREZ; DIRECTOR TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; CHAIRMAN TEXAS BOARD
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE; JOHN DOE DEFENDANTS,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. C-02-CV-437
--------------------
Before SMITH, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesse Jesus Soliz, Texas prisoner #496252, appeals from the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous, for failure
to state a claim, and for seeking relief against immune defendants.
Soliz challenges his state habeas corpus proceedings and his
transfer to the state prison system following revocation of his
parole. Soliz moves to supplement the record; his motion is
DENIED.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
Soliz contends that he was deprived of access to the courts by
the actions of the state trial court during state habeas corpus
proceedings. Defects in state habeas corpus procedures “do not
constitute grounds for relief in federal court.” Trevino v.
Johnson, 168 F.3d 173, 180 (5th Cir. 1999).
Soliz contends that he was deprived of his right of access to
trial counsel and of his right to communicate with the outside
world by being transferred to the custody of the state prison
system. Soliz had no constitutionally protected right to
incarceration in any particular facility. See Olim v. Wakinekona,
461 U.S. 238, 244-45 (1983).
Soliz contends that the district court erred by failing to
make any findings regarding his claim that defense counsel and the
prosecutor conspired to prosecute him maliciously. Soliz states
that his civil rights were violated by the two defendants, but does
not allege facts or argue law to support that proposition. Soliz
has failed to brief the issue for appeal. Brinkmann v. Dallas
County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 1987).
Soliz’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Soliz is
warned that the dismissal of his complaint counts as a strike for
purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that the dismissal of his
appeal counts as a second strike. Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d
383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). When Soliz accumulates three strikes
2
he will not be allowed to bring a civil action or appeal a judgment
in forma pauperis unless he is “under imminent danger of serious
physical injury.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
3