United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT April 17, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-10539
Conference Calendar
MOHAMMED HAMID DEHGHANI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD D. VOGELGESANG, Warden; MICHAEL D. SAVERS, Assistant
Warden; DENNIS MARKGRAF, Captain; DOUG DRETKE, TDC Director,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 2:05-CV-240
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mohammed Hamid Dehghani, Texas prisoner # 881419, appeals
the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint as frivolous and
for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1)
and 42 U.S.C. § 1997e(c)(1). Dehghani alleged violations of his
constitutional rights arising out of his placement in solitary
confinement and the institution of disciplinary proceedings
against him. We review a dismissal of a prisoner complaint as
frivolous for abuse of discretion, see Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-10539
-2-
504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999), and for failure to state a claim de
novo. Harris v. Hegmann, 198 F.3d 153, 156 (5th Cir. 1999).
With respect to placement in solitary confinement, it is
settled law that disciplinary segregation does not present the
type of “atypical, significant deprivation in which a State might
conceivably create a liberty interest.” Sandin v. Conner,
515 U.S. 472, 486 (1995). Dehghani’s eight days in solitary
confinement do not give rise to a constitutional claim. See id.
Dehghani’s contention that there was no probable cause for
bringing a disciplinary proceeding effectively alleges a claim of
malicious prosecution. See Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939,
945 (5th Cir. 2003)(en banc). As the district court properly
held, a freestanding assertion of malicious prosecution does not
give rise to a constitutional claim. See id.
Finally, Dehghani has failed to show any error in the
district court’s denial of his motion for appointment of counsel.
The motion was ordered unfiled for noncompliance with a general
order, and Dehghani took no steps to bring the motion into
compliance. In addition, Dehghani has not established any
circumstances warranting appointment of counsel. See Castro
Romero v. Becken, 256 F.3d 349, 354 (5th Cir. 2001).
As this appeal lacks any arguable merit, we dismiss it as
frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d
383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). The dismissal by the district court of
Dehghani’s suit and the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous
No. 06-10539
-3-
count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba,
103 F.3d at 387-88. In addition, Dehghani has accumulated two
strikes in Dehghani v. Vogelgesang, Case No. 06-10547, decided on
this same date. As Dehghani has now accumulated at least three
strikes, he is barred from proceeding in forma pauperis pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 while he is incarcerated or detained in any
facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical
injury.
APPEAL DISMISSED; 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.