IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 00-60662
Summary Calendar
SAMUEL B. JOHNSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES ANDERSON, Commissioner; C. DAVID TURNER, Superintendent;
SAMUEL JOHNSON, Deputy Warden; HUBERT JORDAN; JERRY WALLEY; KEITH
DUNNAM; LOUIS GONG; STATE OF MISSISSIPPI,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeals from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:99-CV-268-PG
--------------------
February 22, 2001
Before JOLLY, SMITH, and DUHÉ, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Samuel B. Johnson, Mississippi inmate #42325, appeals the
magistrate judge’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as
frivolous and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be
granted. Johnson reiterates that Rule Violation Reports were
ambiguous because they bore different dates and charged different
offenses.
Johnson received notice of the charges sufficient to satisfy
due process concerns. See Wolff v. McDonnell 418 U.S. 539, 564-67
(1974). The confinement in isolation for twenty days and the
1
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
change in inmate classification did not constitute an “atypical and
significant hardship” sufficient to implicate constitutional
concerns. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995); Moody v.
Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1988).
We do not consider for the first time on appeal Johnson’s
allegation that medically classified prisoners are denied
incarceration in privately operated prisons. See Leverette v.
Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999), cert.
denied, 120 S. Ct. 982 (2000). We do not consider Johnson’s
slavery issue raised for the first time in a post-judgment motion
to amend. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir. 1998),
cert. denied, 527 U.S. 1041 (1999).
Johnson’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because
the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of Johnson’s appeal and the district court’s
dismissal of his complaint as frivolous and for failure to state a
claim count as strikes for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). We
caution Johnson that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not
proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while
he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
2