IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-50563
Conference Calendar
__________________
JESSE LEE WASHINGTON,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
PAUL L. FRANKS ET AL.,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. W-95-CV-88
- - - - - - - - - -
(October 17, 1995)
Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Jesse Lee Washington appeals the district court's dismissal
as frivolous of his pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP) complaint
in which he argued that the defendants violated his civil rights
by disciplining him. An IFP claim that has no arguable basis in
law or fact may be dismissed as frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d);
*
Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions
that have no precedential value and merely decide particular
cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes
needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal
profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published.
No. 95-50563
-2-
Booker v. Koonce, 2 F.3d 114, 115 (5th Cir. 1993). This court's
review is for an abuse of discretion. Booker, 2 F.3d at 115.
Although the Constitution mandates that a prisoner receive
due process at a disciplinary proceeding, it does not guarantee
error-free decision-making. See McCrae v. Hankins, 720 F.2d 863,
868 (5th Cir. 1983). In the context of prison disciplinary
proceedings, a finding of guilt requires only the support of
"some facts" or "any evidence at all." See Gibbs v. King, 779
F.2d 1040, 1044 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 476 U.S. 1117 (1986).
Further, Washington was not constitutionally entitled to have the
officer who wrote the disciplinary report present at the hearing.
See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). Nor was it
constitutionally mandated that Washington be represented by
counsel at the hearing. Id. at 570. Thus, the allegedly
ineffective performance of Washington's counsel substitute does
not implicate due process.
Washington's remaining claims are frivolous. Washington
does not have standing to challenge Sergeant Lamb's alleged use
of a racial slur to one of his witnesses. See Murray v. City of
Austin, Tex., 947 F.2d 147, 151 (5th Cir. 1991), cert. denied,
112 S. Ct. 3028 (1992). Washington's assertion that the
magistrate judge participated in an "injustice conspiracy"
because he was drinking and eating donuts with TDCJ officials is
utterly without merit. See Liteky v. United States, 114 S. Ct.
1147, 1157 (1994). Finally, the district court did not err by
dismissing Washington's complaint without holding an evidentiary
hearing. See Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d at 8, 9 (5th Cir. 1994).
No. 95-50563
-3-
Washington's motion to file a supplemental brief is DENIED.
Washington's motion for injunctive relief also is DENIED. The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.