### I N THE UNI TED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FI F TH CI RCUI T

No. 12-40722 Summary Calendar

ERIC WATKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant

v. WESTON LNU, Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:11-CV-742

Before REAVLEY, JOLLY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Eric Watkins, f

ormer federal priso n e r # 55630-004, appeals the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Watkins alleged that Weston L., a disciplinary hearing officer (DHO) at the Federal Correctional Complex in Beaumont, Texas, discriminated against him and violated his due p rocess rights b y ( 1) erroneously convicting him of refusing to obey an order in violation of Bureau of Prisons (BOP) Prohibited Act Code 307; (2) sanctioning him to a loss of 13 days of good time credit, 14 days U n i t e d S t a te s C o u rt o f A p p e al s

F i f t h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D April 23, 2013 Ly l e W . Cay ce Clerk

* Purs uant to 5 T H C I R

. R

. 47. 5, the court has d eterm ined that this op inion should not be p ublis hed and is not p reced ent excep t und er the lim ited circum s tances s et forth in 5 T H C I R

. R. 47. 5. 4. Case: 12-40722 Document: 00512217534 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2013No. 12-40722

of disciplinary segregation, and a three-month loss of commissary, vi sitation, and telepho n e p rivileges; and (3) willfully refusing to issue him a copy of the DHO’s written report. On appeal, Watkins contends that the district c ourt erred when it dismissed his due process claims a s l e g a l l y frivolous. Relying o n Hewitt v. Helms , 4 59 U.S. 460 (1983), he argues that the repeated use o f mandatory langu a g e i n th e f

e d e r al regulations governing the BOP created a constitutionally protected liberty interest in (1) obtaining a copy of the DHO’s written report; (2) remaining in the general population absent v alid reasons for a dministrative or disciplinary segregation; (3) commissary, visitation, and telephone privileges; and (4) a determination of guilt based o n some facts or the greater weight of the evidence. To esta b l i s h a d u e p rocess violation, a p l aintiff must show that he was deprived of a l iberty interest protected by the Constitution o r o ther federal law. Sandin v. Conner , 515 U. S

. 472, 483-84 (1995). A prisoner’s constitutionally protected liberty interests are “general ly limited to f reedom from r estraint which, while not exceeding the s entence in s u c h an u nexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the D u e P r o c e s s Clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in r e l a tion to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484 (internal citati o n s o m i tted). In Wilkinson v. Austin , 545 U.S. 209, 222 (2005), th e Supreme Court recognized that Sandin abrogated Hewitt’s “methodology of parsin g the language of particular regulations.” Thus, “[a]fter Sandin , it is clear that the t ouchstone of the inquiry into the e x i s t e n c e of a protected, state-created l iberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regar d i n g those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves ‘in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.’” Id. at 223 (quoting Sandin , 515 U.S. at 484).

2 Case: 12-40722 Document: 00512217534 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/23/2013No. 12-40722

The district court did not e rr in concluding that Watkins’s 14 days of disciplinary segregation and three-month loss o f commissary, v i s i t a tion, and telephone privileges did not i mplicate a liberty i n t erest protecte d b y t he Due Process Clause. See Sandin , 515 U.S. at 485-86 (finding no liberty in t e r est protecting against a 30-day period of disciplinary segregation); Malchi v. Thaler , 211 F.3d 953, 9 58 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that 3 0-day commissary and cell restrictions did not implicate the Due Process C lause); Berry v. Brady , 192 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 1 999) (observing that prisoners have no constitution a l r i ght to visitation privileges and that restrictions of those privileges do not implicate
any due process concerns); Martin v . Scott , 156 F.3d 578, 579-580 & n.1 (5th Cir. 1998) (holding that loss of visitation and commissary privileges, inter alia, did not d eprive the prisoner of a c o n s titutionally cognizable liberty interest). Further, the requirements that a prisoner’s determination of guilt be supported by some evidence and that the prisoner be given a writte n statement by the factfinders are merely procedural safeguards to which prisoners are entitled if their constitutionally protected liberty interests are i n f ringed. See Morgan v. Quarterman , 570 F.3d 663, 668 (5th Cir. 2009). Although w e assume arguendo that federa l p r i s oners have a liberty interest in their good t ime credits, see Henson v. B ureau of Prisons , 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th C ir . 2 0 0 0) , W atki n s d o e s not challenge the district court’s determination that the BOP’s expungement of his disciplinary conviction and restoration of his good time credits ren d e r ed his claim for damages legally frivolous. This issue is therefore abandoned. See Hugh e s v . Johnson , 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir. 1999). Watkins also contends that the district c ourt erred when it dismissed his
equa l p r o t e c t ion claim. He asserts that the allegations in his complaint were sufficient to show that Weston p urposefully and i n tent i o n ally discriminated against him by refusing to issue him a copy of the DHO’s w ritten r eport. In the alternative, Watkins asserts that the district court e rred when i t dismissed his
3 Case: 12-40722 Document: 00512217534 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/23/2013No. 12-40722

equal pro t e c tion c laim without affording him an opportunity to amend his complaint with the facts necessary t o demonstrate p urposeful a n d i n t e ntional discrimination. The district court did not err in concluding that Watkins’s conclusory and unsubstantiated allegations were i nsufficient to make a showing of purposeful

or intentional discrimination. W atkins a lleged that Westo n willfully discriminated against him b y refusing to issue him a copy of the DHO’s written report while provid i n g o ther similarly situated p risoners with copies of their reports and that Weston’s acts were motivated “by the desire to prevent the exercise o f a c onstitutional right.” His conclusional allegations were insufficient to raise a constitutional issue. See Koch v. Puckett , 907 F.2d 5 24, 5 30 (5th Cir. 1990). Further, because W atkins has n ot identified th e additional facts he would have p resented had he been granted an opportunity to amend his complaint, he has failed to show any error. See Brewster v. Dretke , 5 87 F.3d 7 64, 7 68 (5th Cir. 2009).Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

4 Case: 12-40722 Document: 00512217534 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/23/2013