IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 96-31209
Summary Calendar
_____________________
BILLY SINCLAIR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
KELLY WARD, Warden,
Defendant-Appellee.
_______________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for
the Western District of Louisiana
(95-CV-896)
_______________________________________________________
June 26, 1997
Before REAVLEY, BARKSDALE and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Billy Sinclair argues that the district court erred in
dismissing his complaint as frivolous. Sinclair alleged that his
temporary placement as a protected inmate in a disciplinary
detention unit deprived him of his liberty interest in his
classification status and the privileges accompanying that
status. Sinclair also alleged that his placement in that unit
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
for an extended lockdown constituted the imposition of cruel and
unusual punishment and violated his right to equal protection.
Sinclair also alleged that the defendant warden retaliated
against him by assigning him a farm line job because he exercised
his right of access to the courts and his right to file
complaints against prison officials and employees.
Although appellant did not proceed in forma pauperis, under
the provisions of the 1996 Prison Litigation Reform Act, the
district court correctly determined that Sinclair’s complaint was
frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Sinclair’s temporary assignment to a detention unit usually
reserved for discipinary violations, his assignment to a
different prison job, or termination of trusty status do not
implicate protected liberty interests. Sandin v. Connor,
__U.S.__, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 2301, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995). See also
Meachum v. Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 228 (1976). Additionally, as
Sinclair has failed to allege or demonstrate that his position as
a litigant has been prejudiced by being denied access to a law
library or not being allowed to purchase a typewriter while in
lockdown, he has not shown that his constitutional right of
access to the courts has been violated. Eason v. Thaler, 73 F.3d
1322 (5th Cir. 1996).
Sinclair argues for the first time on appeal that he was
subjected to on-the-job harassment, monitoring of mail and
2
telephone calls in retaliation for his filing complaints
concerning wrongdoing in the prison. Because Sinclair failed to
raise these claims properly in the district court, these issues
must be reviewed for plain error only. See United States v.
Calverley, 37 F.3d 160, 162-164 (1994)(en banc). Sinclair’s
allegations and the responses to his administrative complaint do
not raise an inference of a retaliatory motive, and these claims
require the resolution of factual issues which do not rise to the
level of plain error. Thus these issues are not subject to
review.
AFFIRMED.
3