IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60543
Conference Calendar
TRACY CAGLE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES V. ANDERSON, Commissioner,
Mississippi Department of Corrections;
LARRY HARDY; WALTER BOOKER; ANETT TOWSAND;
BARBARA BAILY,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:00-CV-70-P-A
--------------------
February 14, 2001
Before SMITH, BARKSDALE, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Tracy Cagle, Mississippi prisoner # 78484, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as
frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Cagle’s
placement in administrative segregation did not “impose[]
atypical and significant hardship on [Cagle] in relation to the
ordinary incidents of prison life.” See Sandin v. Conner, 515
U.S. 472, 480-84 (1995). Cagle may not challenge the loss of
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 00-60543
-2-
good-time credits in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. See Clarke v.
Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998)(en banc). Rather,
Cagle must raise this claim in a federal habeas petition. See
Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Clarke, 154 F.3d
at 189. To the extent that Cagle sought damages as a result of
his loss of good-time credits, the district court did not abuse
its discretion in dismissing this claim because Cagle has not
shown that the disciplinary action has been reversed on direct
appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by an
authorized state tribunal, or called into question by a federal
court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994);
Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648-49 (1997).
Cagle’s appeal is without arguable merit and therefore, the
appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d
215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Cagle is advised
that the district court’s dismissal of this action as frivolous
and this court’s dismissal of his appeal as frivolous both count
as “strikes” under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). Cagle is also advised that if
he accumulates three strikes, he will be barred from bringing a
civil action or an appeal proceeding in forma pauperis unless he
is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g). Cagle is advised to review any pending
pleadings or appeals to ensure that they do not raise any
frivolous claims.
APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.