Hogan v. Epps

70 F. App'x 209
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
DecidedJuly 15, 2003
Docket03-60240
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 F. App'x 209 (Hogan 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
Hogan v. Epps, 70 F. App'x 209 (5th Cir. 2003).

Opinion

*210 PER CURIAM. *

Brian Hogan, Mississippi prisoner # 67388, challenges the district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. He has moved for initial hearing en banc. See Fed. R.App. P. 3503). This motion is DENIED.

Hogan contends that he was denied due process at a prison classification hearing, at which he was determined to be a gang member and was lowered in custody status. He also asserts that his lengthy placement in administrative segregation denies due process. He has not established that he has a liberty interest in his classification or custodial status. See Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir.1999); Martin v. Scott, 156 F.3d 578, 580 (5th Cir.1998). Hogan has not shown that the district court erred in dismissing his civil rights complaint. See Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir.1998). Consequently, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

After Hogan filed the instant appeal in forma pauperis (IFP), this court imposed the three-strikes bar against him. See Hogan v. Johnson, No. 02-60631, 67 Fed. Appx. 248, 2003 WL 21145727 (5th Cir. Apr. 29, 2003) (unpublished). Hogan is admonished that, in the future, 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 bodily injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).

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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.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

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
70 F. App'x 209, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hogan-v-epps-ca5-2003.