Filed: Feb. 15, 2007
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-20188 Summary Calendar RICARDO MIRELES RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LARRY LAFLORE; TIM MORGAN; A. MCCOMB; D. ESQUIVEL; ANA COOK, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (4:06-CV-104) - Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-
Summary: United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit F I L E D IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk No. 06-20188 Summary Calendar RICARDO MIRELES RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, versus LARRY LAFLORE; TIM MORGAN; A. MCCOMB; D. ESQUIVEL; ANA COOK, Defendants-Appellees. - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas (4:06-CV-104) - Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:* Plaintiff-A..
More
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 15, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-20188
Summary Calendar
RICARDO MIRELES RODRIGUEZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LARRY LAFLORE; TIM MORGAN; A. MCCOMB; D. ESQUIVEL;
ANA COOK,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
(4:06-CV-104)
--------------------
Before SMITH, WIENER, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Ricardo Mireles Rodriguez, Texas prisoner
# 1289087, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983 suit as frivolous and for failure to state a claim pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e). His § 1983 suit claimed that his placement
in administrative segregation for being a member of a Security
Threat Group (STG) violated his due process rights.
Rodriguez argues that his placement in administrative
segregation violated his due process rights and that his placement
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
in administrative segregation has caused him to lose good-time
credits. We do not consider his claims raised for the first time
on appeal that his due process rights were violated because he is
denied educational opportunities while in administrative
segregation and that his placement in administrative segregation
violated his equal protection rights. See Whitehead v. Johnson,
157 F.3d 384, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1998). Moreover, Rodriguez’s
argument that the district court’s dismissal of his suit did not
follow proper summary judgment procedures is without merit as there
was not a summary judgment motion before the district court when it
issued its ruling.
We review the district court’s dismissal of Rodriguez’s suit
de novo. See Calhoun v. Hargrove, 312 F.3d 730, 733 (5th Cir.
2002); Siglar v. Hightower,
112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th Cir. 1997).
Rodriguez’s placement in administrative segregation after an
initial custody classification does not implicate a liberty
interest. See Wilkerson v. Stalder,
329 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir.
2003); Pichardo v. Kinker,
73 F.3d 612, 613 (5th Cir. 1996); Luken
v. Scott,
71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). Even if Rodriguez’s
confinement in administrative segregation did implicate a liberty
interest, however, he has not demonstrated that he was not afforded
the process he was due under the Constitution. See Sandin v.
Connor,
515 U.S. 472, 478, 483-84 (1995); Hewitt v. Helms,
459 U.S.
460, 472 (1983). In fact, Rodriguez concedes that, in response to
his prison grievances, he was told that an investigation into his
2
custodial classification was conducted and that he was interviewed
in connection with the issue of his custodial classification.
The fact that Rodriguez disagrees with his custodial
classification does not state a constitutional claim. See Neals v.
Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). In addition, the loss
of the opportunity to earn good-time credits does not constitute a
constitutionally cognizable injury. See Malchi v. Thaler,
211 F.3d
953, 959 (5th Cir. 2000);
Luken, 71 F.3d at 193. Accordingly, the
district court did not err in dismissing Rodriguez’s § 1983 suit.
Rodriguez’s motions for leave to supplement the record and for
appointment of counsel are denied. See Theriot v. Parish of
Jefferson, 185 F.3d 477, 491 n.26 (5th Cir. 1999); Ulmer v.
Chancellor,
691 F.2d 209, 212-13 (5th Cir. 1982). Rodriguez’s
appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as frivolous.
See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir.
1983). Rodriguez is warned that the dismissal of this appeal as
frivolous and the district court’s dismissal of his § 1983 suit
each count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that
if he accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in
forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See Adepegba v.
Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996); § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTIONS DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
3
