United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 14, 2003
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-30306
Summary Calendar
ROBERT W. FISHER,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
ELI WILSON; PAUL MEYERS; DEMITA FAIR;
BURL CAIN; RICHARD L. STALDER; ROBERT ANCORD,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
USDC No. 02-CV-924-B
--------------------
Before Higginbotham, Smith, and Clement, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert W. Fisher, Louisiana prisoner # 125273, appeals the
district court’s dismissal for failure to state a claim, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1997e(c), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
lawsuit against a fellow inmate and various prison officials,
alleging that they had conspired to violate his due-process
rights by convicting him of a false disciplinary case, resulting
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-30306
-2-
in the forfeiture of good-time credits and his transfer to Camp J
extended lockdown. The district court’s dismissal is reviewed
de novo. Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 (5th Cir. 1998).
Fisher contends that the district court’s dismissal was
error because he has stated a claim under the Due Process Clause.
He specifically argues that dismissal on the ground that he
sought monetary relief for lost good-time credits was error
because the loss of good-time credits was not the basis for his
due-process claims. Fisher concedes that any claim regarding the
loss of his good-time credits is barred and asserts that he never
presented such a claim to the district court. He asserts that
his due-process claims were instead based on his transfer to
Camp J, urging that he had a liberty interest in not being placed
in extended lockdown or confined to a maximum-security ward.
Even assuming arguendo that such claim can be independently
raised and is not barred, the district court did not err in its
ultimate conclusion that Fisher’s complaint failed to state a
claim because Fisher has not shown how placement in extended
lockdown presented an atypical or significant hardship beyond
the ordinary incidents of prison life, giving rise to a
constitutionally protected liberty interest that would trigger
due-process guarantees. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484
(1995); Wilkerson v. Stalder, 329 F.3d 431, 436 (5th Cir. 2003).
The district court’s judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.
AFFIRMED.