Armendariz-Mata v. Lappin , 157 F. App'x 767 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 14, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-41287
Conference Calendar
CARLOS ARMENDARIZ-MATA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
HARLEY LAPPIN, National Director for the U.S. Department
of Justice BOP, in his official and individual capacity;
ET AL.,
Defendants,
HARLEY LAPPIN, National Director for the U.S. Department
of Justice BOP, in his official and individual capacity;
HARRELL WATTS, in his individual capacity; RONALD G.
THOMPSON, in his individual capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 5:03-CV-157-DF-CMC
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Carlos Armendariz-Mata, federal prisoner # 42411-080,
appeals the dismissal of his Bivens** action for failure to state
a claim. Armendariz’s complaint alleged that his due process
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
**
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
No. 04-41287
-2-
and equal protection rights were violated when his request for
transfer to a prison facility closer to his family was denied.
Armendariz has failed to allege the deprivation of a liberty
interest because the Due Process Clause does not provide
prisoners with a protected liberty interest in being housed in a
particular facility. Yates v. Stalder, 217 F.3d 332, 334 (5th
Cir. 2000). Armendariz has similarly failed to state an equal
protection claim because he has not shown, as an alien subject to
an INS detainer, that he is similarly situated to prisoners who
will remain in the United States following their release. See
Samaad v. City of Dallas, 940 F.2d 925, 941 (5th Cir. 1991).
Armendariz’s allegation that other inmates with INS detainers
were allowed to participate in the “nearer to release” program
was deemed unexhausted by the district court and therefore
subject to dismissal. Armendariz does not address the district
court’s determination in this regard, and he has therefore waived
its review. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir.
1993).
AFFIRMED.