Guzman v. Hollingsworth

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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
June 19, 2007
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-41040
Conference Calendar
DEMETRIS GUZMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JORDAN HOLLINGSWORTH,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:06-CV-245
--------------------
Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Demetris Guzman, federal prisoner # 66401-079, appeals the
dismissal of his action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents
of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) as frivolous and
for failure to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A. Guzman’s
suit alleged that he was deprived of certain privileges as
punishment for his participation in a prison food strike,
including a 90-day reduction in his pay grade. By limiting his
brief on appeal to the wage claim, Guzman has abandoned any other

-- 1 of 3 --

No. 06-41040
-2-
due process claims raised in the district court. See United
States v. Lucien, 61 F.3d 366, 370 (5th Cir. 1995).
We review the dismissal de novo. See Ruiz v. United States,
160 F.3d 273, 275 (5th Cir. 1998). Contrary to Guzman’s
assertions, the protections of the Due Process Clause do not
attach to any disciplinary action by prison officials. Rather,
due process applies only when government action threatens a
protected liberty or property interest. Blackburn v. City of
Marshall, 42 F.3d 925, 935 (5th Cir. 1995).
Guzman must identify some legal authority creating a
legitimate expectation in compensation at a particular rate. See
Brooks v. George County, Miss., 84 F.3d 157, 163 (5th Cir. 1996).
We have previously held that prisoners have no liberty or
protected property interest in particular prison job assignments.
See Bulger v. United States Bureau of Prisons, 65 F.3d 48, 49-51
(5th Cir. 1995). Given the discretion of prison officials with
respect to job assignments and wage determinations, Guzman has
failed to show that the 90-day reduction in his wages deprived
him of any interest subject to the protections of the Due Process
Clause.
As Guzman’s appeal lacks arguable merit, we dismiss his
appeal as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King, 707
F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). The dismissal by the district
court of Guzman’s suit and the dismissal of this appeal as
frivolous count as two strikes under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See

-- 2 of 3 --

No. 06-41040
-3-
Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996).
Guzman is cautioned that if he accumulates three strikes under
§ 1915(g), he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis 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).
DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

-- 3 of 3 --