United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 29, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20486
Summary Calendar
EUGENE LAUE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
GARY JOHNSON; SAMMY BUENTELLO, Assistant Director of
Classification; LETICIA MCQUEEN; ALFRED JANICEK, JR., Warden;
JOHNNY ARMSTRONG; BILL CHEATHAM; CAY CANNON; PAMELA FRANKS;
GARY GRIFFITH; STEPHEN RODGERS; VANESSA SINEGAURE; KELLY B.
STRONG; JONI M. WHITE; JOHN WYETH,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-1112
--------------------
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Eugene Laue, Texas prisoner # 255017, appeals the district
court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Laue challenges his continued
incarceration in administrative segregation despite his
renunciation of his gang membership. This court reviews
dismissals under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A de novo. Velasquez v. Woods,
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-20486
-2-
329 F.3d 420, 421 (5th Cir. 2003). A complaint may be dismissed
as frivolous “if it lacks any arguable basis in law or fact.”
Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).
Because Laue has alleged that his placement in
administrative segregation was not based on his initial
classification, review is under the familiar test of Sandin v.
Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). See Wilkerson v. Stalder, 329 F.3d
431, 436 (5th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 432 (2003).
We will assume arguendo that Laue’s eight years of confinement in
administrative segregation constitutes an “atypical and
significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary
incidents of prison life.” Sandin, 515 U.S. at 484.
The ultimate question is whether a prisoner was afforded the
process he was due under the Constitution. See Sandin, 515 U.S.
at 483-84. Laue’s pleadings do not specifically allege how the
prison’s review procedures were insufficient. However, the
grievances he submitted reflect that prison officials have
investigated his renunciation of his gang membership, that
officials have determined his renunciation to be valid, and that
he is awaiting placement in a special program for former gang
members. We conclude that Laue’s complaint does not reflect that
he has been denied due process.
AFFIRMED.