IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10687
Conference Calendar
METRIC E. MITCHELL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LESLIE W. WOODS; CARY J. COOK;
ERNEST D. IVEY; RAYNALDO CASTRO;
EARL E. FOX; WADE A. KING; KEITH G. GENTRY,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:97-CV-291-X
- - - - - - - - - -
December 10, 1998
Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Metric E. Mitchell (Texas prisoner #658822) appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
action as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Mitchell argues that the Administration Segregation Committee of
the Allred Unit is using two disciplinary infractions to keep him
confined in administrative segregation at a Level III
classification. He contends that a Texas Department of Criminal
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-10687
-2-
Justice directive, namely Administrative Directive 03.50, creates
a protected liberty interest because it prohibits the use of
administrative segregation for punitive purposes. He further
contends that he was denied due process because he was held
accountable for the two disciplinary infractions without
receiving the procedural protections set forth in Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974).
Mitchell’s Level III classification and the conditions and
consequences associated with that classification, including his
continued confinement in administrative segregation, do not
“present the type of atypical, significant deprivation in which a
state might conceivably create a liberty interest.” Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995); see Wilson v. Budney, 976 F.2d
957, 958 (5th Cir. 1992); Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 579 n.1,
580 (5th Cir. 1998); Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193-94 (5th
Cir. 1995). Neither Administrative Directive 03.50 nor the Due
Process Clause affords Mitchell a protected liberty interest
which would have entitled him to the procedural protections set
forth in Wolff. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 487.
Because Mitchell has not alleged a deprivation of a
protected liberty interest, his § 1983 action has no arguable
basis in law. See Siglar v. Hightower, 112 F.3d 191, 193 (5th
Cir. 1997). The district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing his complaint as frivolous. See id. Mitchell’s
appeal is likewise frivolous and is therefore DISMISSED. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. R.
No. 98-10687
-3-
42.2. We warn Mitchell that any additional frivolous appeals
filed by him or on his behalf will invite the imposition of
sanctions. To avoid sanctions, Mitchell is cautioned to review
any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments
that are frivolous.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.