IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30438
Summary Calendar
JERROD A. WILSON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
BURL CAIN; RICHARD L. STALDER,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Middle District of Louisiana
(01-CV-59-D)
June 29, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jerrod A. Wilson, Louisiana prisoner #254839, contends that
the district court erred in dismissing his civil rights complaint
as frivolous and as failing to state a claim on which relief can be
granted.1 Wilson claims that his right to due process was violated
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.
1
See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(ii).
by a disciplinary proceeding in which he was not provided the
procedural safeguards required by Wolff v. McDonnell.2
We review the district court’s determination that the
complaint is frivolous for abuse of discretion, and we review
dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo.3 A district court
may dismiss a complaint as frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis
in law or fact.4 Because at this stage we merely assess the
sufficiency of the complaint, we assume that the prison
disciplinary proceedings did not provide the procedural safeguards
described in McDonnell. Nonetheless, because Wilson has not
alleged the violation of a protected liberty interest, we find that
the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing the
complaint as frivolous.
Wilson argues that he was deprived of good-time credits at the
disciplinary hearing. However, Wilson is not eligible to receive
good-time credit under his current sentence, and thus the length of
his sentence was not affected by the deprivation. Until such time
as the loss of those good-time credits affects the length of his
2
418 U.S. 539, 563-66 (1974).
3
See Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 718 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1999).
4
See id. at 718.
2
incarceration, Wilson’s claim that the loss of those credits
infringed his liberty interest is not ripe.5
Wilson also argues that his placement in extended lockdown
implicated his due process rights. The Supreme Court in Sandin v.
Conner6 explicitly held to the contrary.7
Since Wilson’s claim of deprivation of a right protected by
the Fourteenth Amendment has no arguable basis in law, we AFFIRM
the judgment of the district court.
5
See Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 769 (5th Cir. 1997); see also Sandin
v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 477-78 (1995) (noting that the prisoner has a liberty
interest in early release from prison created by statutes that shorten sentences
for good time, not in the good time credits themselves).
6
515 U.S. 472, 485-86 (1995).
7
On appeal, Wilson makes, for the first time, several other arguments.
Even if we were to address these arguments, they are not relevant to the question
of an unconstitutional deprivation of a right, which is the sole allegation in
Wilson’s complaint.
3