IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60045
Conference Calendar
HENRY CLAY LEWIS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MARSHALL COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY,
HOLLY SPRINGS, MISSISSIPPI; EMMITT L.
SPARKMAN, Warden; TODD GUELKER; WILLIAM
PEARY; EUGENE ESFORD; GLORY HARRIS;
F.S. JORDAN,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 3:98-CV-11-D-A
--------------------
June 16, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Henry Clay Lewis, Mississippi prisoner # 12339, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as
frivolous. He contends that he received a more severe punishment
for his minor violation than was warranted by prison policies.
To the extent Lewis is arguing a violation of prison policy, he
has not set forth a constitutional cause of action. Hernandez v.
Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986). To the extent
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-60045
-2-
Lewis is contending that the punishment was imposed in violation
of his due process rights, he has not shown that he suffered an
“atypical and significant hardship . . . in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life.” Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S.
472, 484 (1995).
Lewis also asserts that he suffered a due process violation
with respect to his complaint under the Administrative Remedy
Program. Although he at one point asserts that he never received
a response to his First Step, he concedes at another point that
prison officials did respond to his grievance. To the extent
Lewis contends that his due process rights were violated because
he did not receive a response for nearly four months, he has not
shown that this delay, even if unreasonable, affected his due
process rights. Lewis implies that the delay interfered with his
access to the courts. He has failed, however, to show an actual
injury that would allow him to prevail on his claim. Lewis v.
Casey, 518 U.S. 343, 349-51 (1996). Lewis finally implies that
his money was seized improperly and he did not have an adequate
postdeprivation remedy to recover it, so his due process rights
were violated. Lewis has not shown that Mississippi did not
provide a proper postdeprivation remedy; he has asserted only
displeasure with the results of the steps he took to recover his
funds.
Lewis has failed to show that the district court abused its
discretion in dismissing his civil rights complaint as frivolous.
The ruling of the district court is AFFIRMED.
No. 00-60045
-3-
Lewis has also filed a motion to divest the district court
of jurisdiction. This has been done by Lewis’s appeal from a
final decision of the district court. The motion is DENIED AS
MOOT.
AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED AS MOOT.