Bradley v. Mississippi Department of Corrections

Fifth Circuit

Bradley v. Mississippi Department of Corrections

283 F. App'x 250

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 23, 2008

Docket07-60043

StatusUnpublished

This text of 283 F. App'x 250 (Bradley v. Mississippi Department of Corrections) 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

Bradley v. Mississippi Department of Corrections, 283 F. App'x 250 (5th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

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 court’s certifi *251 cation 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-cv-00171-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.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.

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

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 court’s certifi *251 cation 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-cv-00171-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.

*

Pursuant to 5th Cm. 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 Cm. R. 47.5.4.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 F. App'x 250, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bradley-v-mississippi-department-of-corrections-ca5-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack