(caption unavailable)

*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should not be published.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 92-2888
(Summary Calendar)
JAMES W. PERKINS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
M. STONE,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(CA H-92-2842)
April 30, 1993
Before KING, DAVIS and WIENER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant James W. Perkins complains on appeal that
his civil rights complaint should not have been dismissed as
frivolous by the district court. Finding that, even under a
relaxed pleading standard, Perkins failed to allege particular

-- 1 of 4 --

2
facts with sufficient specificity to show denial of a
constitutional right, we affirm.
I
FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Perkins, a Texas Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) inmate,
filed a pro se suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that his
constitutional rights were violated when he was wrongly accused of
a disciplinary infraction. In his complaint Perkins stated that,
because of a back problem, he was taken to the prison infirmary on
August 18, 1992, where he received medication and a "lay-in" pass
for two days. Defendant-Appellee guard Stone, however, wrote a
disciplinary report charging that Perkins refused to attend a
vocational training class on August 18, "without a legitimate
reason." On August 29, a disciplinary hearing was conducted and
Perkins was found not guilty of the charge.
The district court granted Perkins leave to proceed in forma
pauperis (IFP) and dismissed his complaint as frivolous.
II
ANALYSIS
An IFP complaint may be dismissed by the court sua sponte if
the complaint is frivolous. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). A complaint is
frivolous if it lacks an arguable basis in law or fact. Denton v.
Hernandez, U.S. , 112 S.Ct. 1728, 1733, 118 L.Ed.2d 340
(1992). Dismissal may be premature, however, if the complaint
raises a colorable claim that could be "fleshed out" consistent
with this court's holding in Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179

-- 2 of 4 --

1 In reviewing the propriety of a dismissal on the
pleadings, Morrison relied on the "heightened pleading standard" of
Elliot v. Perez, 751 F.2d 1472, 1479-82 (5th Cir. 1985). Morrison,
761 F.2d at 244-46. In light of the Supreme Court's recent
decision in Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence &
Coordination Unit, U.S. , 113 S.Ct. 1160, 1163 (1993), to
limit application of the heightened scrutiny standard, it is
unclear whether Elliot remains good law in cases involving the
qualified immunity of individual defendants. But even with a fully
3
(5th Cir. 1985). Foulds v. Corley, 833 F.2d 52, 54 (5th Cir.
1987). Although the district court did not give Perkins an
opportunity to develop his claim under Spears, Perkins nonetheless
fails to demonstrate that the dismissal was premature.
The federal courts have a narrow role in the review of prison
disciplinary proceedings. Stewart v. Thigpen, 730 F.2d 1002, 1005
(5th Cir. 1984). Procedural due process requires that a prisoner
be provided with notice of the charges and an opportunity to be
heard. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 96 S.Ct. 893,
47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976). Perkins' complaint and attachments indicate
that the disciplinary proceedings were procedurally adequate and
that he was found not guilty of the disciplinary charge against
him.
To the extent that Perkins alleges that a false disciplinary
charge was brought simply for harassment, he presents no specific
facts in support of his claim. Rather, he asks the courts to
investigate why the false charge was made. That is not the role of
the federal courts. A plaintiff in a § 1983 action must state
facts in reasonable detail and specificity and not merely allege
conclusions. Morrison v. City of Baton Rouge, 761 F.2d 242, 244
(5th Cir. 1985).1 As Perkins has failed to allege discrete facts

-- 3 of 4 --

relaxed pleading standard Perkins has failed to meet muster.
4
sufficient to demonstrate any violations of his constitutional
rights by the defendant, the district court committed no reversible
error in dismissing the complaint as frivolous.
AFFIRMED.

-- 4 of 4 --