IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-30530
Conference Calendar
RICKY SEABERRY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MICKEY HUBERT; CARL COLEMAN; TERRY REEVES,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Louisiana
USDC No. 01-CV-843
--------------------
February 19, 2003
Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Ricky Seaberry, Louisiana prisoner # 131369, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit as
frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). If his brief
is liberally construed, Seaberry argues that his complaint was
not frivolous, and he renews his due-process and malicious-
prosecution claims. He also appears to argue, for the first time
on appeal, that the defendants violated his Eighth Amendment
rights, but this claim will not be considered because it was not
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 02-30530
-2-
first presented to the district court. See Stewart Glass &
Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount Centers, Inc., 200 F.3d
307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000).
Seaberry’s due-process claims fail because the disciplinary
proceedings did not implicate a protectable liberty interest.
See Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767 (5th Cir. 1997); see
also Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957-58 (5th Cir. 2000);
Neals v. Norwood, 59 F.3d 530, 533 (5th Cir. 1995). His
malicious prosecution claim fails because, as the district court
determined, the district attorney is entitled to absolute
prosecutorial immunity. See Boyd v. Biggers, 31 F.3d 279, 285
(5th Cir. 1994); see also Kerr v. Lyford, 171 F.3d 330, 337
(5th Cir. 1999). Seaberry has waived any challenge to the
determination that Reeves was immune from suit by failing to
brief it. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th
Cir. 1993).
Seaberry’s appeal is wholly without arguable merit, is
frivolous, and is therefore DISMISSED. See Howard v. King,
707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The
district court’s dismissal of his complaint counts as a “strike”
for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), as does this court’s
dismissal of the instant appeal. See Adepegba v. Hammons,
103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). As Seaberry was informed in
the district court, he has at least one prior strike. See
Seaberry v. Lee, No. 2:98-CV-312 (E.D. La. Nov. 24, 1998)
No. 02-30530
-3-
(unpublished). Because Seaberry has accumulated at least three
strikes, he is BARRED from proceeding IFP 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). Seaberry is further CAUTIONED to review
any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise frivolous
issues.
APPEAL DISMISSED; THREE-STRIKES BAR IMPOSED.