Juarez v. Newcomb ( 1999 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 98-51160
Summary Calendar
BONIFACIO JUAREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
MAURICE NEWCOMB, Captain; DAYTON POPPELL, Warden,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Texas
USDC No. SA-97-CV-931
--------------------
November 3, 1999
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Bonifacio Juarez, Texas prisoner # 722475, appeals the
district court’s dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit as
frivolous. Juarez argues that there were constitutional
violations with respect to prison disciplinary hearings which
ultimately resulted in the loss of 45 days of recreational and
commissary privileges, as well as a period of time of solitary
confinement and a change in his custody classification status.
Our review of the record reveals that there was some
evidence supporting the hearing officer’s disciplinary decisions
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 98-51160
-2-
that Juarez participated in the assault of another prisoner; that
Juarez has failed to show that there were any procedural errors
with the disciplinary proceedings after the first one, which was
vacated in Juarez’s administrative appeal; and that Juarez’s
ultimate punishment did not involve the loss of good-time credit.
Juarez has failed to show that he was deprived of a
constitutional right. See Gibbs v. King, 779 F.2d 1040, 1044
(5th Cir. 1986); Wolff v. McDonnel, 418 U.S. 539, 563-64 (1974);
Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 612-13 (5th Cir. 1996).
Juarez’s § 1983 suit lacked an arguable basis in law, and the
district court’s dismissal of the complaint as frivolous was not
an abuse of discretion. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii);
Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31-34 (1992).
To the extent that Juarez’s brief requests the appointment
of counsel for his appeal or challenges the district court’s
denial of his district court motion for the appointment of
counsel, Juarez does not make the requisite showing for the
appointment of counsel or that one was necessary in the district
court. See Ulmer v. Chancellor, 691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir.
1982). His request is DENIED.
AFFIRMED.