IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-40566
Conference Calendar
KENNETH CRAIG FOUNTAIN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES COOKSEY; GEORGE GRAHAM; LINDA DEHOYOS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:98-CV-1950
- - - - - - - - - -
June 16, 2000
Before JOLLY, DAVIS, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Kenneth Craig Fountain, Texas prisoner # 537008, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim. He argues for the
first time on appeal that the conditions in administrative
segregation deny prisoners the minimal necessities resulting in
an unconstitutional confinement. Fountain has failed to
demonstrate plain error with regard to this issue of factual
dispute. See Robertson v. Plano City of Texas, 70 F.3d 21, 22
(5th Cir. 1995). The mere fact that Fountain is in
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 99-40566
-2-
administrative segregation does not constitute a deprivation of a
constitutionally cognizable liberty interest. Luken v. Scott, 71
F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995).
Fountain also argues that the defendants have denied
adequate medical care for his alleged psychiatric condition.
He has alleged a mere disagreement with the degree and method of
psychiatric treatment he has received, which is insufficient to
states a claim for Eighth Amendment indifference to medical
needs. See Norton v. Dimazana, 122 F.3d 286, 292 (5th Cir.
1997). He also alleged that Cooksey, the prison psychologist,
was negligent for not referring him to a psychiatrist, which is
also insufficient to create a cognizable § 1983 claim. See
Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d 320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991).
Accordingly, the district court’s dismissal of Fountain’s
complaint is AFFIRMED. The district court’s dismissal and this
court’s affirmance of the district court’s dismissal count as a
single strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba
v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 385 (5th Cir. 1996). Fountain is
warned that if he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed
in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal while he is
incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is in imminent
danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.