Adams v. Epps

Fifth Circuit

Adams v. Epps

334 F. App'x 688

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 25, 2009

Docket07-60955

StatusUnpublished

This text of 334 F. App'x 688 (Adams v. Epps) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Adams v. Epps, 334 F. App'x 688 (5th Cir. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM: *

Latrell Adams filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against various Mississippi state *689 prison officials alleging that he should have been transferred from a Mississippi prison to a Kentucky prison under the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC). The district court dismissed Adams’s lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (g) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Adams has appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that he should be transferred because his life is at risk, and he moves to expedite the appeal.

Adams does not have any constitutional interest in educational or rehabilitation programs provided by the prison pursuant to the ICC. See Esparza v. Deputy, No. 93-8665,1994 WL 122158 (5th Cir. Mar.25, 1994). Furthermore, Adams does not have a protectable property or liberty interest in where he is housed. See Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976); Wilson v. Budney, 976 F.2d 957, 958 (5th Cir.1992). Finally, Adams has failed to allege facts which warrant judicial intervention with respect to the prison’s decisions regarding Adams’s housing assignment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400-02 (5th Cir.1995).

The district court’s dismissal of Adams’s complaint for failure to state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Adams is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed informa pau-peris 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).

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO EXPEDITE APPEAL DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *689 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM: *

Latrell Adams filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 lawsuit against various Mississippi state *689 prison officials alleging that he should have been transferred from a Mississippi prison to a Kentucky prison under the Interstate Corrections Compact (ICC). The district court dismissed Adams’s lawsuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (g) for failure to state a claim on which relief could be granted. Adams has appealed the district court’s decision, arguing that he should be transferred because his life is at risk, and he moves to expedite the appeal.

Adams does not have any constitutional interest in educational or rehabilitation programs provided by the prison pursuant to the ICC. See Esparza v. Deputy, No. 93-8665,1994 WL 122158 (5th Cir. Mar.25, 1994). Furthermore, Adams does not have a protectable property or liberty interest in where he is housed. See Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U.S. 236, 242, 96 S.Ct. 2543, 49 L.Ed.2d 466 (1976); Wilson v. Budney, 976 F.2d 957, 958 (5th Cir.1992). Finally, Adams has failed to allege facts which warrant judicial intervention with respect to the prison’s decisions regarding Adams’s housing assignment. See Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 833, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 128 L.Ed.2d 811 (1994); Horton v. Cockrell, 70 F.3d 397, 400-02 (5th Cir.1995).

The district court’s dismissal of Adams’s complaint for failure to state a claim counts as a strike for purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir.1996). Adams is cautioned that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed informa pau-peris 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).

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO EXPEDITE APPEAL DENIED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under *689 the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

334 F. App'x 688, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/adams-v-epps-ca5-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack