eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2018-07

Curtis Lasater v. Herrera ( 2018 )


Menu:
 
  •      Case: 16-20784      Document: 00514542125         Page: 1    Date Filed: 07/05/2018
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
FILED
No. 16-20784                              July 5, 2018
Summary Calendar
Lyle W. Cayce
Clerk
CURTIS LASATER,
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
WARDEN HERRERA; WARDEN BILLNOSKI; CAPTAIN MARSHALL;
MAJOR MCCLARRIN; SERGEANT WHITTENBURGH; SERGEANT
PARKER,
Defendants-Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:16-CV-476
Before DAVIS, COSTA, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: *
Proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis (IFP), Curtis Lasater, Texas
prisoner    # 1584341,      appeals    the    dismissal     pursuant     to      28      U.S.C.
§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim.
He also moves for the appointment of counsel to represent him on appeal.
* 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 R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH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.
Case: 16-20784     Document: 00514542125     Page: 2    Date Filed: 07/05/2018
No. 16-20784
Lasater alleged in the district court that prison officials wrote him a false
disciplinary report for possession of tobacco and violated his due process rights
by destroying the physical evidence prior to his hearing and by not allowing
witness testimony in support of his defense. Lasater was found guilty, and, as
punishment, he lost 45 days of recreation privileges, 45 days of commissary
privileges, and 45 days of access to the offender telephone system, and his line
class status was reduced from S3 to L1.
We review a dismissal under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) de novo.          Harris v.
Hegmann,
    198 F.3d 153
    , 156 (5th Cir. 1999). Punishments such as those
imposed in this case do not “present the type of atypical, significant deprivation
in which a State might conceivably create a liberty interest” and do not
implicate due process concerns. See Sandin v. Conner,
    515 U.S. 472
    , 486
(1995); see also Tilmon v. Prator,
    368 F.3d 521
    , 522, 524 (5th Cir. 2004); Malchi
v. Thaler,
    211 F.3d 953
    , 958-59 (5th Cir. 2000); Martin v. Scott,
    156 F.3d 578
    ,
579 n.1, 580 (5th Cir. 1998).
This case does not present exceptional circumstances requiring the
appointment of counsel, see Ulmer v. Chancellor,
    691 F.2d 209
    , 212 (5th Cir.
1982), and Lasater’s motion for counsel is denied. The judgment of the district
court is AFFIRMED.
2