Navarro v. Green, et al

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
December 9, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-40955
Conference Calendar
JUAN F. NAVARRO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LISA GREEN, Corrections Officer IV
Coffield Unit; M. ARNOLD, Captain,
Coffield Unit; L. COOK, Captain, Coffield
Unit; E. A. BURSE, Major, Coffield Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:03-CV-173
--------------------
Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan F. Navarro, Texas prisoner #602579, appeals the
dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). He argues that the district court erred
in not allowing him to amend his complaint before it was
dismissed and that the district court’s reliance on Edwards v.

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 03-40955
-2-
Balisok, 520 U.S. 641 (1997), was error because he was not
challenging the loss of good-time credits.
Title 28 U.S.C. § 1915A instructs the district court to
review prisoner complaints, before docketing if feasible, or in
any event, as soon as practicable, and to dismiss them if they
are “frivolous, malicious, or fail[] to state a claim upon which
relief may be granted.” 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1). This court
reviews 28 U.S.C. § 1915A dismissals as frivolous for an abuse of
discretion. See Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir.
1998).
The district court did not abuse its discretion in
dismissing Navarro’s complaint as his placement in administrative
segregation did not implicate due process concerns and his
complaint did not raise cognizable claims of equal protection or
retaliation. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 474, 485
(1995); Muhammad v. Lynaugh, 966 F.2d 901, 903 (5th Cir. 1992);
Grant v. Cuellar, 59 F.3d 523, 524-25 (5th Cir. 1995); Johnson v.
Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir. 1997).
Navarro’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous.
See Howard v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983).
Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR.
R. 42.2. The dismissal of this appeal as frivolous and the
district court’s dismissal of this lawsuit as frivolous
constitute two strikes for purposes of the 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g)
bar. Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996). We

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 03-40955
-3-
caution Navarro that once he accumulates three strikes, he may
not proceed 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 28 U.S.C.
§ 1915(g).
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; WARNING ISSUED.

-- 3 of 3 --