(caption unavailable)

*Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the Court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 92-4601
Summary Calendar
HAROLD J. VINCENT, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD J. STALDER, Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
(CA-91-1460-P)
February 18, 1993
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, SMITH, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Harold J. Vincent is an inmate at Wade Correctional Center in
Louisiana. Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, he filed this
42 U.S.C § 1983 suit in U.S. District Court for the Western
District of Louisiana, naming as defendants former Governor Buddy
Roemer, former Secretary of the Louisiana Department of Public
Safety and Corrections Bruce N. Lynn, and prison officials Richard
Stalder and Jerry Cantrell. After Vincent was ordered to amend his

-- 1 of 4 --

2
complaint to allege facts sufficient to support his claims, the
district court adopted the recommendation of the magistrate and
dismissed the complaint as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915 (d).
Vincent has appealed. We affirm.
I.
A district court may sua sponte dismiss complaints filed in
forma pauperis where the complaint lacks an arguable basis in law
or fact. Such dismissals are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
Denton v. Hernandez, 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733-34 (1992).
Vincent asserts: 1) that prison officials have conspired to
kill him; 2) that he has been denied psychological and medical
treatment; 3) that he has been denied educational and vocational
training; 4) that he has been denied access to legal materials; and
5) that prison officials have improperly refused his requests for
transfer to the federal prison system. The first two claims
alleging a conspiracy among prison officials and a denial of
medical treatment are not supported by any references to specific
facts. The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion
in dismissing the claims on this basis.
The district court's dismissal of Vincent's last three claims
was also proper. Vincent argues that the defendants' refusal
either to supply sufficient educational and vocational training or
transfer him to a federal prison where better programs might be
available contravenes Louisiana statutes directing prison officials
to establish rehabilitation programs, see LSA-R.S. § 15: 828, and
authorizing transfers of state inmates to federal prisons. See LSA-

-- 2 of 4 --

3
R.S. § 15:836. Claims rooted in violations of state law, however,
are not, as such, cognizable under § 1983, which protects federal
rights against government encroachment. Relief is warranted only
where breaches of state law rise to a constitutional dimension.
Vincent's claim regarding the inadequacies of rehabilitative
services at WCC fails for this reason, as we have held "a 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) (citing Newman v. Alabama, 559 F.2d 283, 292
(5th Cir. 1977), rev'd in part on other grounds, 438 U.S. 781,
cert. denied, 438 U.S. 915 (1978)). Similarly, Vincent's assertion
of prison officials' denials of his request for a transfer to
federal prison as grounds for § 1983 relief conflicts with the
well-established rule that inmates have no constitutional right to
contest their places of incarceration or demand transfers to other
prisons. See, e.g., Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238 (1983).
Vincent finally contends that he has been denied access to
legal materials in violation of Bounds v. Smith, 430 U.S. 817
(1977). "A denial-of-access-to-the-courts claim is not valid if a
litigant's position is not prejudiced by the alleged violation."
Henthorn v. Swinson, 955 F.2d 351, 354 (5th Cir. 1992). Here, the
several suits filed by Vincent belie any suggestion of prejudice.
Richardson v. McDonnell, 841 F.2d 120, 122 (5th Cir. 1988); see
also Vincent v. Waldo, No. 92-4604 (5th Cir. Aug. 31, 1992). The
district court's dismissal of Vincent's complaint as frivolous is
therefore AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 4 --

4
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --