* Pursuant to 5 T H C IR

. 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

April 28, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-11294

Summary Calendar

WILLIE J. NELSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

A. STRANG,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 1:02-CV-206

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Willie J. Ne lson, Texas prisoner # 690228, appeals the

district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) as frivolous and for failure to state a

claim. He contends that defendant Strang forged Nelson’s signature

on a parole plan and falsely stated that he had contacted Nelson’s

sister in conjunction with that plan, which resulted in his being1 In his brief, Nelson also alleges t hat this constituted a

denial of his Fifth Amendment rights. However, in his complaint

filed in the district court Nelson alleged only a violation of his

Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, so we address only those

claims on appeal. Stokes v. Emerson Elec. Co. , 217 F.3d 353, 358

n.19 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that arguments not raised in the

district court cannot be asserted for the first time on appeal).

2 See Woods v. Edwards

, 51 F.3d 577, 581 (5th Cir. 1995)

(holding that an Eighth Amendment violation occurs only where a

condition of confinement is “so serious as to ‘deprive prisoners of

the minimal c ivilized measure of life’s necessities,’” and the

prison official responsible was “‘deliberately indifferent’ to

inmate health or safety”).

3 Johnson v. Rodriguez , 110 F.3d 299, 308 (5th Cir. 1997).

4 Id.

2 denied parole in 1999 in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth

Amendments. 1

Nelson’s allegation of cruel and unusual punishment resulting

from having to serve an extended sentence after his 1999 parole

denial does not establish a violation of his Eighth Amendment

rights. 2 Moreover, “[t]he protections of the Due Process Clause

are only invoked when State procedures which may produce erroneous

or unreliable results imperil a protected liberty or property

interest.” 3 We have previously held that “Texas prisoners have no

protected liberty interest in parole,” and therefore “they cannot

mount a challenge against any state parole review procedure on

procedural (or substantive) Due Process grounds.” 4 Although Nelson

argues that he was entitled to a full and fair parole hearing and

that Strang violated this right b y forging Nelson’s signature on

the parole plan and lying about contacting Nelson’s sister,5 Id. at 308-09.

6 See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).

7 See 5 TH C IR

. R. 42.2.

8 See Adepegba v. Hammons

, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).

9 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

3 “allegations that t he Board considers unreliable or even false

information in making parole determinations, without more, simply

do not assert a federal constitutional violation”; “[r]ather, such

concerns are matters for the responsible state agencies and it is

to those bodies that grievances concerning parole procedures should

be addressed.” 5

Nel son’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. 6 Accordingly, we DISMISS Nelson’s appeal as frivolous. 7

This dismissal of his appeal as frivolous and the district court’s

dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a

claim upon which relief can be granted constitute two “strikes” for

the pur poses of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). 8 If Nelson obtains three

“strikes,” he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis 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. 9