Ali v. Dretke , 214 F. App'x 371 ( 2006 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT December 19, 2006
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 06-40371
Summary Calendar
DANIEL RAYHAAN ALI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DOUG DRETKE; ARTHUR VELASQUEZ;
RORY KNOTT; WILLIAM DUGGER,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:05-CV-298
--------------------
Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Daniel Rayhaan Ali, Texas prisoner # 1077766, appeals the
district court’s dismissal as frivolous of his in forma pauperis
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Ali asserts that he was improperly
convicted of a disciplinary charge for refusing to shave his
beard, in light of a medical pass and his sincerely held
religious beliefs. He maintains that the disciplinary conviction
violated the First Amendment and various federal and state
statutes.
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 06-40371
-2-
Because Ali’s challenge calls into question the validity of
his disciplinary conviction, and because Ali lost good-time
credits as a result of that conviction, his challenges are barred
because he has not shown that the disciplinary conviction has
been overturned. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648-49
(1997); cf. Muhammad v. Close, 540 U.S. 749, 751-55 (2004). To
the extent that the loss of privileges does not call into
question the duration of Ali’s confinement, he cannot establish
that he is entitled to relief on the merits of his allegations.
See Hicks v. Garner, 69 F.3d 22, 25 (5th Cir. 1995); Hernandez v.
Estelle, 788 F.2d 1154, 1158 (5th Cir. 1986).
Ali has not established that the district court abused its
discretion by dismissing his civil rights action as frivolous
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Berry v. Brady, 192
F.3d 504, 507 (5th Cir. 1999). As a result, the judgment of the
district court is affirmed.
The district court’s dismissal of Ali’s complaint as
frivolous counts as one strike under § 1915(g). Adepegba v.
Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). Ali is cautioned
that if he accumulates three strikes, he may no longer 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).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.