IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-60951
Conference Calendar
LUTHER EDWARD CARR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SHEILA FANCHER; DAVID TURNER; ROBERT L. JOHNSON,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:01-CV-154-PG
- - - - - - - - - -
June 18, 2002
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Luther Edward Carr, Mississippi prisoner # 73275, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his pro se, in forma pauperis
42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Carr contends that his due process rights
were violated when he was placed in lockdown at South Mississippi
Correctional Institute (SMCI), in Leakesville, Mississippi, even
though he had not received any rule violation reports and he was
not given a reason for being placed in lockdown. He contends
that his classification status should have been upgraded. Carr
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 01-60951
-2-
argues that the district court erred by dismissing his complaint
without conducting an evidentiary hearing. He also asserts, for
the first time on appeal, that he is still in lockdown because he
filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint.
Carr admits that he was classified as a C-custody inmate
when he was transferred to SMCI. However, he contends that
because he received additional privileges, including being taken
out of lockdown, for working in the fields at the Mississippi
State Penitentiary at Parchman, Mississippi, prior to his
transfer to SMCI, he was entitled to be classified as a B-custody
inmate. Carr has no protectable liberty interest in being
incarcerated at a particular institution or obtaining a
particular custodial classification, nor has he established such
an interest based on administrative segregation. See Meachum v.
Fano, 427 U.S. 215, 225 (1976); Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716,
719 (5th Cir. 1999); Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 612 (5th
Cir. 1996). Therefore, the district court did not abuse its
discretion in dismissing his complaint as frivolous and without
an evidentiary hearing. To the extent that Carr asserts that he
has remained in lockdown due to his filing of a 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint, we do not address this issue because it is raised for
the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder
Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999), cert. denied, 528 U.S.
1138 (2000).
Carr’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as
frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215,
219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal of the appeal as frivolous
No. 01-60951
-3-
and the district court’s dismissal of Carr’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint as frivolous count as “strikes” under the three-strikes
provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103
F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996); 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
Carr is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three “strikes” under 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to 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 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES WARNING ISSUED.