Bradley v. MS Dept Corrections, et al
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS United States Court of Appeals FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit
No. 07-60043 Summary Calendar
June 23, 2008 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.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-cv00171-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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?