United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT January 3, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-60508
Summary Calendar
DWRIGHT BRIDGES,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JOHN LEE, Investigator, in his official capacity; ETHEL CARLIZE,
Disciplinary Chairperson, in her official capacity;
MICHAEL WILSON, Superintendent, in his official capacity;
CHRISTOPHER EPPS, Commissioner, in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:04-CV-108-MD
--------------------
Before JONES, BARKSDALE and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Dwright Bridges, Mississippi inmate #34782, proceeding
pro se, moves for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) in
an appeal of the district court’s final judgment that dismissed
his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Bridges’ IFP motion is a
challenge to the district court’s certification that his appeal
is not taken in good faith. Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 202
(5th Cir. 1997).
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 04-60508
-2-
Bridges asserts that the defendants did not comply with the
institution’s rules and policies during his disciplinary
proceedings. Bridges contends that the disciplinary report
omitted the correct date, location, and time of the offense and
did not include the names of the witnesses to the offense. For
the first time on appeal, Bridges contends that he did not
receive notice twenty-four hours in advance of the disciplinary
hearing and that he was found guilty of conduct that does not
constitute a violation of prison policy. He asserts that the
rules of the Mississippi Department of Corrections do not
prohibit inmates from having identical telephone numbers on their
telephone call lists and do not prohibit disclosure of a pin
number to another inmate. He argues that he was entitled to
conduct discovery prior to dismissal of his complaint.
The protections afforded by the Due Process Clause do not
extend to “every change in the conditions of confinement” which
adversely affects prisoners. Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765,
767 (5th Cir. 1997). The loss of good time credits as a result
of prison disciplinary proceedings may implicate protected
liberty concerns and may entitle an inmate to the procedural
safeguards set forth in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556,
564-66 (1974). See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995);
Hudson v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 534, 536 (5th Cir. 2001); Murphy v.
Collins, 26 F.3d 541, 543 & n.5 (5th Cir. 1994).
No. 04-60508
-3-
Bridges, however, did not allege a loss of good time, and
the record does not demonstrate that he was deprived of good time
credit. Bridges’ claim concerning the loss of commissary
privileges does not implicate concerns that are protected by the
Due Process Clause. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 486; Malchi v.
Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000). Moreover, even if a
protected liberty interest was implicated during Bridges’
disciplinary proceedings, his claims for damages and removal of
the violation from his prison record based on a violation of his
due process rights are not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648 (1997) (applying Heck
v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994).
Bridges has not shown that the district court erred in
certifying that an appeal would not be taken in good faith. He
has not shown that he will present a nonfrivolous issue on
appeal. Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 220 (5th Cir. 1983).
Accordingly, the motion for leave to proceed IFP is DENIED and
the appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous. Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202
n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
The dismissal of this appeal and the district court’s
dismissal of Bridges’ complaint for failure to state a claim
count as strikes under the Prison Litigation Reform Act.
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Bridges
is CAUTIONED that if he accumulates three “strikes” under
28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed IFP in any
No. 04-60508
-4-
civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained
in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious
physical injury. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PROCEED IFP DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED;
SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.