Miles v. Windham School Dist, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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
October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-40512
Conference Calendar
JACKIE LAMAR MILES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WINDHAM SCHOOL DISTRICT, Michael Unit; JEFFREY FLOWERS,
Principal, Windham School District, Education Department,
Michael Unit; JERRY REDDEN; UNIDENTIFIED LONG, Chairman,
Math and Physics Department, TVCC,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:02-CV-559
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jackie Lamar Miles, Texas prisoner # 854814, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may
be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). Miles argues
that the defendants violated his constitutional rights in that
they denied him the right to take an education class and they

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 03-40512
-2-
stole his property. Miles has not shown that the district court
erred in dismissing his claim that the defendants denied him the
right to take a class as the “state has no constitutional
obligation to provide basic educational or vocational training to
prisoners.” Beck v. Lynaugh, 842 F.2d 759, 762 (5th Cir. 1988).
Miles has not shown that Texas does not afford an adequate remedy
for the alleged deprivation of property. See Murphy v. Collins,
26 F.3d 541, 543 (5th Cir. 1994).
Miles’ appeal is without arguable merit and, therefore, is
DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220
(5th Cir. 1983); see 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Because Miles has failed
to show exceptional circumstances, his motion for appointment of
counsel is DENIED. See Cupit v. Jones, 835 F.2d 82, 86 (5th Cir.
1987).
The dismissal of Miles’ complaint and appeal in this matter
each count as a “strike” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba
v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). If Miles
accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis
in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated in
any facility unless he is in imminent danger of serious physical
injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

-- 2 of 2 --