No. 99-20345
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20345
Summary Calendar
WARREN PIERRE CANADY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal
Justice, Institutional Division; GARY L. JOHNSON, Director
Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division;
ED WHITEHEAD; M.B. THALER; R.J. PARKER; C.S. STAPLES;
T. MERCHANT,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-970CV-1678
--------------------
March 23, 2000
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Warren Pierre Canady, Texas inmate #723784, appeals the
district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights
complaint. He also challenges the court’s sanction which directs
the clerk of court to refuse to accept for filing any future
complaint of Canady which has not received judicial authorization.
We detect no abuse of the court’s discretion in dismissing the
complaint as frivolous. See McCormick v. Stalder, 105 F.3d 1059,
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-20345
-2-
1061-62 (5th Cir. 1997). Canady contends that due process requires
the prison grievance system to have similar minimum requirements as
the due process requirements for inmate disciplinary hearings. See
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 562-66 (1974). Canady’s argument
erroneously presumes the similarity of circumstance between an
inmate facing the deprivation of a protected constitutional
interest because he violated the prison’s rules and an inmate
seeking redress concerning some aspect of his confinement. See
Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976).
Canady argues that the district court erred in dismissing his
claim concerning the denial of due process in ten disciplinary
cases. No constitutional interest was implicated in the
disciplinary cases not involving the loss of good-time credit. See
Sandin v. O’Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Orellana v. Kyle, 65
F.3d 29, 31-32 (5th Cir. 1995). For the two disciplinary cases
involving the loss of good-time credit, Canady cannot raise a civil
rights claim seeking damages and declaratory relief without first
showing that the result of the disciplinary proceedings at issue
have been overturned, expunged, or otherwise called into question.
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648-49 (1997).
Canady’s challenge to the sanction is unpersuasive. See
Mendoza v. Lynaugh, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993) (reviewing
sanction for abuse of discretion). The district court did not
abuse its discretion by imposing the sanction. See Murphy v.
Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1994).
Our review of Canady’s litigation history, as listed by the
magistrate judge in the order to show cause, reveals one case which
No. 99-20345
-3-
amounts to a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) strike. See Canady v. Washington,
No. 96-CV-1756 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 1996) (dismissed pursuant to
Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)). Our affirmance of
the district court’s dismissal for frivolousness creates strike
two. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).
AFFIRMED.