IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-31084
Conference Calendar
MARK ANTHONY RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD L. STALDER, Secretary, Department of Public
Safety and Corrections; RICHARD PEABODY; MAJOR TOLLIVER;
S. BAILEY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 99-CV-376-C
--------------------
June 13, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mark Anthony Richardson (#92767), a state prisoner, has
appealed the district court's judgment dismissing his pro se
civil rights complaint as frivolous. Richardson contends that
his right to due process was violated in connection with a prison
disciplinary proceeding because he did not violate a named rule
or a posted policy, and because he was actually innocent.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 99-31084
-2-
A prisoner’s complaint may be dismissed as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) if it has no arguable basis
in law or in fact. Ruiz v. United States, 160 F.3d 273, 274-75
(5th Cir. 1998). A § 1915A(b)(1) dismissal is reviewed de novo.
Id. at 275.
Under Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995), a
convicted prisoner’s liberty interest under the Due Process
Clause is generally limited to freedom from restraint which,
although not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner
as to give rise to due process protection of its own force,
nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the
inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.
Richardson’s disciplinary confinement did not involve an atypical
or significant hardship in relationship to the ordinary incidents
of prison life. See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir.
1995) (administrative segregation, without more, does not
constitute a deprivation of a constitutionally cognizable liberty
interest). The procedures employed by prison authorities in
determining whether to place Richardson in administrative
segregation did not implicate Richardson's rights under the Due
Process Clause. The district court did not err in dismissing the
complaint as frivolous. See Ruiz, 160 F.3d at 275.
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See
Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983); 5th Cir. Rule
42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.