IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-10992
Summary Calendar
ANTHONY RAY ARCHER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR,
TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
---------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 7:97-CV-159-X
---------------------
May 7, 1999
Before EMILIO M. GARZA, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Anthony Ray Archer, Texas prisoner #306447, seeks leave to
proceed in forma pauperis (IFP), following the district court’s
certification that his appeal from the dismissal of his civil-
rights complaint was taken in bad faith. Archer asserts that the
district court erred by holding his claims barred by Edwards v.
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997); that he did not receive due process
in three prison disciplinary proceedings; that three guards filed
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 98-10992
- 2 -
false disciplinary reports against him; and that two of the three
guards retaliated against him.
Archer has failed to brief his assertion that the district
court erred by holding his claims barred by Edwards. See
Brinkmann v. Dallas County Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744,
748 (5th Cir. 1987). Moreover, the punishments Archer received
at his disciplinary hearings, a reduction in status and cell and
commissary restrictions, do not implicate protected liberty
interests. Archer has not shown a due process violation
concerning his disciplinary hearings. Madison v. Parker, 104
F.3d 765, 768 (5th Cir. 1997); Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193
(5th Cir. 1995). Archer has failed to brief his retaliation
assertions, Brinkmann, 813 F.2d at 748, and he does not allege a
favorable termination of his disciplinary proceedings, as is
required for any claim based on the filing of false disciplinary
reports independent of any retaliation claim. Woods v. Smith, 60
F.3d 1161, 1165 n.16 (5th Cir. 1995).
Archer’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, Archer’s IFP motion is DENIED and the appeal is
DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as
frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
We caution Archer that once he accumulates three strikes, he may
not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is
in prison unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; WARNING ISSUED.