United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 22, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60575
Conference Calendar
ROBERT CRAIG STARKS,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
MICHAEL PETTIFORD, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:03-CV-283-BrS
--------------------
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Robert Craig Starks, federal prisoner # 83561-020, appeals
from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he
alleged that the procedures used in his prison disciplinary
proceeding violated his due process rights and, further, that the
evidence was insufficient to support a finding of guilt.
Federal habeas relief, however, can be had only where the
petitioner has been deprived of some right secured to him by the
laws of the United States or by the United States Constitution.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60575
-2-
Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957 (5th Cir. 2000). Although
disciplinary action resulting in an inmate’s loss of previously
earned “good time” must be accompanied by procedural safeguards,
see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-65 (1974), Starks was
not deprived of good-time credits. Moreover, he has no
constitutional right to be housed in any particular facility, and
he concedes that he was never placed in administrative
segregation. See Olim v. Wakinekona, 461 U.S. 238, 244-45
(1983); Tighe v. Wall, 100 F.3d 41, 42 (5th Cir. 1996); see also
Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). He therefore
has not been deprived of a liberty interest and has not stated a
cognizable § 2241 claim. See Malchi, 211 F.3d at 957.
AFFIRMED.