Reeves v. State of Texas ( 1995 )

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 95-10549
Summary Calendar
WAYNE MORRIS REEVES, JR.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
STATE OF TEXAS, PARDON AND PAROLE DIVISION;
JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;
JOHN DOE, Commissioner of TDCJ-Board of Pardons
and Paroles Division,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas
(2:93-CV-255)
(September 27, 1995)
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DUHÉ, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Appellant, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice inmate,
proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, brought suit under 42
U.S.C. § 1983. The district court dismissed the suit under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(d) as frivolous. We affirm, and specifically warn
1
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Rule, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be
published.
Appellant that the filing of any further frivolous suits will
result in sanctions.
Appellant claims that the Texas practice of requiring inmates
to work violates the Thirteenth Amendment; that since he cannot be
forced to work, he cannot be disciplined for refusing to work; and
that inmates should be compensated for their work and given more
“work time credit”. This Court has long ago decided all these
issues adverse to Appellant’s position. Wendt v. Lynaugh, 841 F.2d
619, 620-21 (5th Cir. 1988); see also Murray v. Mississippi Dep’t
of Corrections, 911 F.2d 1167, 1167-68 (5th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 498 U.S. 1050 (1991). These same authorities dispose of
his claim regarding revocation of prisoners “work time credits”.
We do not consider Reeves claims that relinquishment of work
time credit as a condition of parole is unconstitutional because he
did not allege that he either has been, or will be, eligible for
parole so he has not presented a case or controversy for decision.
Cross v. Lucius, 713 F.2d 153, 158 (5th Cir. 1983). This Court is
without jurisdiction to consider the issue.
Appellant raises for the first time on appeal the contentions
that his medical records have been altered and that attendance at
the Windham School deprives inmates of true educational
opportunity. We do not consider issues not raised in the district
court. Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 322 (5th Cir. 1991). His
assertion in the district court that other prisoners’ medical
records were altered does not state a claim that Appellant is
competent to litigate.
2
Numerous orders of the district court are complained of on
appeal but no understandable argument is advanced in Appellant’s
papers in relation to them so we are unable to review them.
AFFIRMED.
3