Villarreal v. Beesler, 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-41412
Summary Calendar
ROBERTO R. VILLARREAL,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM BEESLER, Guard, Coffield Unit; ANTONIO BRIONES, Sergeant,
Coffield Unit; JOE SATTERWHITE, Property Officer, Coffield Unit;
BERNIE BUSH, Captain, Coffield Unit; LEIGH HARDING, Lieutenant,
Coffield Unit; KEVIN MOORE, Assistant Warden, Coffield Unit,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 6:98-CV-728
--------------------
July 21, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Roberto R. Villarreal, (inmate # 552587), appeals the
dismissal of his civil rights suit filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983,
as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Villarreal’s due
process claims about his disciplinary hearing are not grounds for
§ 1983 relief inasmuch as he has not shown that the revocation of
his good-time credits has been invalidated. See Clarke v.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-41412
-2-
** This court may affirm on this basis even though the
district court relied on other analysis for its dismissal. See
McGrew v. Texas Bd. of Pardons and Parole, 47 F.3d 158, 160 (5th
Cir. 1995).r
Stalder, 154 F.3d 186, 189 (5th Cir. 1998) (en banc), cert.
denied, 525 U.S. 1151 (1999).**
Villarreal’s claims that he was retaliated against for
exercising free speech and for writ writing is frivolous because
these claims do not invoke a specific constitutional right.
Johnson v. Rodriguez, 110 F.3d 299, 310 (5th Cir. 1997); Gibbs v.
King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1045 (5th Cir. 1986); Tighe v. Wall, 100
F.3d 41, 43 (5th Cir. 1996). Villarreal’s claim that he was
retaliated against for using the prison grievance procedure is
frivolous because Villarreal fails to show a chronology of events
from which retaliation may plausibly be inferred. Woods v.
Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1166 (5th Cir. 1995).
Last, Villarreal’s argument that he was deprived of his
typewriter without due process of law is not cognizable under
§ 1983 because Texas has adequate postdeprivation remedies for
the confiscation of prisoner property. See Thompson v. Steele,
709 F.2d 381, 383 (5th Cir. 1983).
JUDGMENT AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --