IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
June 23, 2008
No. 07-60043
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
MONDRIC BRADLEY
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; CHRISTOPHER EPPS,
Commissioner; LAWRENCE KELLY, Superintendent of the Classification
Department; ROY ROGERS, Warden, Area II; MAXENE LENCH; PAMELA
ROBINSON; EMMITT L SPARKMAN, Deputy Commissioner; UNKNOWN
LEWIS; A TAYLOR, Lieutenant
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 4:06-CV-205
Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Mondric Bradley, Mississippi prisoner # 46406, appeals from the district
court’s dismissal of his civil-rights lawsuit, filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Bradley has filed
a motion to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, challenging the district
*
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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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. 07-60043
court’s certification that his appeal was not taken in good faith pursuant to
Baugh v. Taylor, 117 F.3d 197, 199-202 (5th Cir. 1997).
Bradley argues that (1) he was assigned to a prison housing facility that
is not appropriate for prisoners with his medical disabilities, thereby violating
his due process rights, and (2) his prison housing assignment was the result of
retaliation for filing a prior lawsuit. Because Bradley does not have a liberty
interest in his housing classification, he has failed to state a valid due process
claim on this basis. See Wilkerson v. Stalder, 329 F.3d 431, 435-36 (5th Cir.
2003); Moody v. Baker, 857 F.2d 256, 257-58 (5th Cir. 1988). Moreover, his
conclusional allegations of retaliation are insufficient to state a claim. See
Moody, 857 F.2d at 258.
The district court’s certification that Bradley’s appeal is not taken in good
faith is upheld, Bradley’s motion for IFP on appeal is denied, and this appeal is
dismissed as frivolous. See Baugh, 117 F.3d at 202 & n.24; 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.
Bradley is hereby informed that the dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts
as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), in addition to the strike for the
district court’s dismissal. See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th
Cir. 1996). Bradley also earned a strike in Bradley v. Thompson, No. 4:98-cv-
00171-GHD (N.D. Miss. May 19, 1999). As Bradley now has accumulated at
least three strikes, he is barred from proceeding IFP in any civil action or appeal
filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under
imminent danger of serious physical injury. See § 1915(g).
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; 28
U.S.C. § 1915(g) BAR IMPOSED.
2