
    Eric GANT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. A.W. RITER, Jr.; Robert A. Estrada, Esquire; Woody L. Hunt; Charles Miller; Rita C. Clements; Judith L. Craven, M.D.; Cyndi Taylor Krier; H. Scott Caven, Jr.; James Richard Huffines, Jr.; Larry R. Faulkner, Dr., University of Texas at Austin-President; William C. Powers, Jr., University of Texas at Austin-Dean of Law School; Monica K. Ingram, University of Texas at Austin-Law School Admissions; Other Law Schools; UT Law, University of Texas at Austin; Board of Regents of the Texas State University System, UT Regents; Mark G. Yudof, Chancellor, University of Texas at Austin, Defendants-Appellees.
    
      No. 05-50259.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
    Decided May 26, 2006.
    Eric Gant, Grand Prairie, TX, pro se.
    Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
   PER CURIAM:

Eric Gant, pro se, moves to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint. By moving to proceed IFP, Gant is challenging the district court’s certification that he should not be granted IFP status because his appeal is not taken in good faith. See Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202 (5th Cir.1997); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3); Fed. R.App. P. 24(a).

Gant has not identified a nonfrivolous issue for appeal with respect to the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 equal protection and due process claims seeking injunctive relief. To state a claim of racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause, the plaintiff “must demonstrate that the governmental official was motivated by intentional discrimination on the basis of race.” Coleman v. Houston Indep. Sch. Dist., 113 F.3d 528, 533 (5th Cir.1997). Because Gant set forth mere conclusional allegations of intentional discrimination, the district court did not err in dismissing his equal protection claims for failure to state a claim. See Kane Enters. v. MacGregor (USA), Inc., 322 F.3d 371, 374 (5th Cir.2003). Because Gant failed to identify a constitutionally protected liberty or property interest, the district court did not err in dismissing his due process claim for failure to state a claim. See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569-70, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972).

Gant has abandoned any arguments concerning the district court’s dismissal of his claims against the defendants for monetary damages on grounds of sovereign immunity and the district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his Title VI claims by failing to adequately brief those issues for appeal. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993).

Gant’s request to proceed IFP in this court is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n. 24; 5th Cir. R. 42.2. We have previously sanctioned Gant for the filing of frivolous appeals, ordering him to pay $100 to the clerk of this court and ordering the clerk to return to Gant unfiled any submissions he should make until the sanction is paid in full, and Gant has not paid the sanction. Gant v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 152 Fed.Appx. 396 (5th Cir.2005) (unpublished). Because this appeal was briefed prior to our warning, we decline to sanction Gant again at this time. However, we reiterate our warning. Gant should review all pending appeals to ensure that they are not frivolous.

IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED. 
      
       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.
     