is entitled to federal injunctive relief on his constitutional claims only if a reasonable likelihood exists the plaintiff will again be subjected to the unconstitutional actions. Because plaintiff has failed to establish even an arguable basis for a finding that his constitutional rights were ever violated by the defendant, plaintiff is not entitled to prospective injunctive relief in this cause. E. Request for Intervention On November 21, 1996 plaintiffs fellow Connally Unit inmate Earnie Gipson filed a motion seeking leave to in 989), (“A state’s failure to follow its own procedural regulations does not establish a violation of due process, because 'constitutional minima may nevertheless have been met.’ ”); and Brown v. Texas A & M University, 804 F.2d 327, 335 (5th Cir.1986), (<HOLDING>). 75 . Pub.L. No.. 104-134, 110 Stat. 1321. 76
holding that a state agencys violations of its own internal regulations did not establish a due process violation or otherwise give rise to a constitutional claim holding that a states failure to follow its own procedural regulations does not constitute a violation of due process if constitutional minima are met holding that an agencys interpretation of its own regulations is entitled to deference holding that alleged violations of a state statute did not give rise to federal constitutional claims holding that an employers mere failure to follow its own rules and regulations does not give rise to a protected property interest