IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-40128
Conference Calendar
CHARLES WILLIAM ECKELS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY L. JOHNSON, DIRECTOR, TEXAS
DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE,
INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; UNIDENTIFIED
THIRD SHIFT CAPTAIN; UNIDENTIFIED BUSH,
Captain, Disciplinary Captain; UNIDENTIFIED
SMITH, Counselor; UNIDENTIFIED MOORE,
Assistant Warden; UNIDENTIFIED UPSHAW,
Assistant Warden; KAY SHEELY, Authorized
decision maker Step 2 Grievance; AUTHORIZED
DECISION MAKER STEP 2 GRIEVANCE,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:99-CV-446
- - - - - - - - - -
October 17, 2000
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Charles William Eckels, Texas prisoner # 606718, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. In his amended complaint,
Eckels alleged that his due process rights were violated as a
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-40128
-2-
result of his being charged with and punished for violating a
prison disciplinary rule. Eckels argues that the district court
erred in holding that his confinement in punitive segregation for
25 days did not affect a liberty interest because the court did
not make factual findings concerning the conditions in the
Coffield Unit where he was incarcerated. He contends that the
district court abused its discretion by dismissing his complaint
without allowing him the opportunity to amend it again to show
the conditions in punitive segregation. He asserts that his
disciplinary hearing was conducted in an arbitrary and capricious
manner, that the hearing officer relied on insufficient evidence,
and that the proceeding violated due process.
This court reviews de novo the district court’s dismissal of
a § 1983 complaint as frivolous under § 1915A. Ruiz v. United
States, 160 F.3d 273 (5th Cir. 1998). A complaint is frivolous
if it lacks an arguable basis in fact or if it is based on an
“indisputably meritless legal theory.” McCormick v. Stalder, 105
F.3d 1059, 1061 (5th Cir. 1997). The district court’s denial of
a motion to file an amended complaint is reviewed for abuse of
discretion. Ashe v. Corley, 992 F.2d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1993).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying
Eckels’ request to amend his complaint because Eckels had
previously amended his complaint, he did not make this request
until after the magistrate judge had issued his report and
recommendation, and, most importantly, he proffered only
conclusional allegations in support of his request to amend and
did not establish a factual basis for an amendment.
No. 00-40128
-3-
Eckels has not shown that he had a protected liberty
interest in remaining free of solitary confinement or prehearing
detention. See Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995); Pichardo
v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 613 (5th Cir. 1996). Therefore, he could
not state a due process claim, and the district court did not err
in dismissing his complaint as frivolous.
AFFIRMED.