IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-50396 Summary Calendar

STEVEN LEE GREGORY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

HILL COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT; BRENT BUTTON, Sheriff; KEVIN DAVIS,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas (No. W-01-CV-265) _________________________________________________________________ October 25, 2002

Before BARKSDALE, DEMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Steven Lee Gregory, Texas prisoner # 849097, appeals, pro se,

the dismissal, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), of his

action because he fails to state a claim upon which relief

may be granted. Gregory contends defendants violated his civil

rights by failing to investigate burglaries of his house or arrest

* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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. a suspect for them. A Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is reviewed de novo.

E.g., Oliver v. Scott,

(5th Cir. 2002).

The Due Process Clause does not require the State to protect

the life, liberty, and property of its citizens against invasion by

private actors. See DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dep’t of Social

Servs.,

(1989). Further, Gregory has not shown

an exception to this general rule based on a special relationship.

See Walton v. Alexander,

(5th Cir. 1995)

(en banc); Johnson v. Dallas Indep. Sch. Dist.,

, 200

(5th Cir.), cert. denied,

(1995).

Gregory also contends defendants violated his equal protection

rights by failing to investigate the burglaries or arrest a suspect

because Gregory is incarcerated. Because Gregory has not alleged

that he was treated differently from similarly situated individuals

or that the unequal treatment was based on the defendants’

discriminatory intent, he has not alleged sufficient facts to state

an equal protection claim. See Taylor v. Johnson,

(5th Cir. 2001).

Gregory’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus

frivolous. See Howard v. King,

(5th Cir.

1983). Because it is frivolous, the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5TH

CIR. R. 42.2. Gregory is advised that the district court’s

dismissal of his complaint for failure to state a claim and the

dismissal of this appeal both count as strikes under

(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,

(5th Cir. 1996). Gregory is advised that, if he receives one more strike, he

may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal

while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is

in imminent danger of serious physical injury.

DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED

3