United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 29, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 02-60631
Summary Calendar
BRIAN F. HOGAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ROBERT L. JOHNSON, COMMISSIONER, MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT Of
CORRECTIONS; EMMITT L. SPARKMAN, Superintendent, Mississippi
State Penitentiary; ETHEL CARLIZE, Disciplinary Chairperson;
GORMILLA, Officer,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:02-CV-152-P-A
--------------------
Before JONES, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:1
Brian F. Hogan, Mississippi prisoner #67383, appeals from the
dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a
claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii). Hogan argues
that the district court erred by dismissing his action for failure
to state a claim. He argues that he did not receive due process
and that he did identify a cognizable liberty interest because his
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
disciplinary hearing resulted by operation of prison policy in
additional time being added to the period he already was serving in
administrative segregation.
The Due Process Clause was not implicated by the 30 days’ loss
of privileges Hogan alleged he received as punishment at
his disciplinary hearing. To the extent that any extension of
Hogan’s time in segregation resulting from the disciplinary hearing
might be actionable in Hogan’s challenge to the hearing, there is
no protected liberty interest against segregated confinement.
Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484, 486 (1995). The dismissal of
Hogan’s action for failure to state a claim was not erroneous.
Hogan’s appeal is without arguable merit and is dismissed as
frivolous. See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983);
5TH CIR. R. 42.2. The district court’s dismissal of Hogan’s action
and this court’s dismissal of his appeal each count as a “strike”
against Hogan for purposes of 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g). Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir.
1996). This court previously dismissed one of Hogan’s appeals as
frivolous. Hogan v. Nobles, No. 99-60295, 2 (5th Cir. Oct. 17,
2000) (unpublished). Hogan thus has three “strikes” and he may not
proceed 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).
2
APPEAL DISMISSED. 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
SANCTION IMPOSED.
3