No. 99-60509
-1-
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60509
Conference Calendar
ROOSEVELT WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BARRY PARKER; WALTER BOOKER; MR. KING;
JAMES V. ANDERSON; LARRY HARDY;
MIRIAM MASON; ANN LEE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:98-CV-39-B-A
--------------------
April 12, 2000
Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roosevelt Washington, Mississippi prisoner # 50085, appeals
the dismissal as frivolous of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit
alleging that his due-process rights were violated when he was
placed in administrative segregation and when he received a
reduced custody classification. Washington’s due-process claims
fail because neither placement in administrative segregation nor
a reduction in custody classification implicate a protectable
liberty interest. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 486
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-60509
-2-
(1995); Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995); Neals
v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995).
To the extent that Washington argues that the defendants’
disciplinary action violated prison rules, the argument is not of
a constitutional dimension and thus fails to state a claim under
§ 1983. See also Levitt v. Univ. of Texas at El Paso, 759 F.2d
1224, 1230 (5th Cir. 1985). Moreover, because Washington’s
claims are facially without merit, the district court did not err
in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing. See
§ 1915(e)(2)(B).
This court will not consider Washington’s newly raised
claims that he is illegally incarcerated and that the
disciplinary action taken against him constituted a double-
jeopardy violation. See Shanks v. AlliedSignal, Inc., 169 F.3d
988, 993 n.6 (5th Cir. 1999); Burch v. Coca-Cola, 119 F.3d 305,
319 (5th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1084 (1998). His
appeal is frivolous and is therefore DISMISSED. Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. His
motion for the appointment of counsel is DENIED.
APPEAL DISMISSED; MOTION FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL
DENIED.