Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50745/USCOURTS-ca5-03-50745-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

January 30, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50745

Summary Calendar

 

DIONICIO A. CRUZ,

Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

TEXAS PAROLE DIVISION,

Respondent-Appellee.

--------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. SA-02-CV-310

--------------------

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Dionicio A. Cruz, a Texas parolee, appeals the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, wherein he

challenged the retroactive application of the State of Texas’ Super

Intensive Supervision Program (“SISP”) as a condition of his

parole. The district court granted Cruz a certificate of

appealability on the issue whether SISP violates the Ex Post Facto

Clause by subjecting Cruz to greater punishment on parole.

Cruz argues that: (1) he is entitled to the benefit of the

 Case: 03-50745 Document: 0051334131 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/30/2004
2

parole laws in effect at the time of his conviction and subsequent

parole violation and (2) the retroactive application of SISP

constitutes a violation of the Ex Post Facto Clause because the

SISP provisions are more onerous than the former parole laws. He

has also filed a motion for injunctive relief in this court. 

Texas prisoners have no constitutional expectancy of parole.

See Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997). Thus, 

to the extent Cruz argues that he is entitled to the benefit of the

parole laws that were in effect at the time of his state conviction

and subsequent parole violation, he has not stated a violation of

a constitutional right. See Orellana v. Kyle, 65 F.3d 29, 32 (5th

Cir. 1995). 

To the extent that Cruz argues that SISP violates the Ex Post

Facto Clause by increasing the punishment for his offense, his

argument fails. The only SISP condition that Cruz specifically

challenges on appeal is the State’s use of electronic monitoring.

In Vineyard v. Keesee, No. 95-10132 (5th Cir. Oct. 18, 1995)

(unpublished), slip. op. at 3-5, this court held that changes in

Texas parole laws imposing electronic monitoring, urinalysis,

driving restrictions, and curfew did not constitute an ex post

facto violation. In light of Vineyard, Cruz has not stated a

violation of a constitutional right. See 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.3.

Because Cruz has failed to establish a violation of his

constitutional rights, he is not entitled to habeas relief. See

Orellana, 65 F.3d at 31.

 Case: 03-50745 Document: 0051334131 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/30/2004
3

In his request for injunctive relief, Cruz seeks to enjoin the

State from impeding his access to the law library. In light of the

disposition of this case, Cruz cannot make the showing required for

obtaining an injunction because he cannot demonstrate a substantial

likelihood of success on the merits. See Lindsay v. City of San

Antonio, 821 F.2d 1103, 1107 (5th Cir. 1987).

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.

 Case: 03-50745 Document: 0051334131 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/30/2004