IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

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, former federal prisoner # 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 process rights by (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

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 23, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* 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: 12-40722 Document: 00512217534 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/23/2013
No. 12-40722

of disciplinary segregation, and a three-month loss of commissary, visitation,

and telephone privileges; and (3) willfully refusing to issue him a copy of the

DHO’s written report.

On appeal, Watkins contends that the district court erred when it

dismissed his due process claims as legally frivolous. Relying on Hewitt v.

Helms, 459 U.S. 460 (1983), he argues that the repeated use of mandatory

language in the federal 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 valid reasons for administrative or

disciplinary segregation; (3) commissary, visitation, and telephone privileges;

and (4) a determination of guilt based on some facts or the greater weight of the

evidence.

To establish a due process violation, a plaintiff must show that he was

deprived of a liberty interest protected by the Constitution or other federal law. 

Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995). A prisoner’s constitutionally

protected liberty interests are “generally limited to freedom from restraint

which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to

give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, nonetheless

imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the

ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id. at 484 (internal citations omitted). In

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 222 (2005), the Supreme Court recognized

that Sandin abrogated Hewitt’s “methodology of parsing the language of

particular regulations.” Thus, “[a]fter Sandin, it is clear that the touchstone of

the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in

avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations

regarding 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: 04/23/2013
No. 12-40722

The district court did not err in concluding that Watkins’s 14 days of

disciplinary segregation and three-month loss of commissary, visitation, and

telephone privileges did not implicate a liberty interest protected by the Due

Process Clause. See Sandin, 515 U.S. at 485-86 (finding no liberty interest

protecting against a 30-day period of disciplinary segregation); Malchi v. Thaler,

211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000) (holding that 30-day commissary and cell

restrictions did not implicate the Due Process Clause); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d

504, 508 (5th Cir. 1999) (observing that prisoners have no constitutional right

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 deprive the prisoner of a constitutionally 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 written statement by the

factfinders are merely procedural safeguards to which prisoners are entitled if

their constitutionally protected liberty interests are infringed. See Morgan v.

Quarterman, 570 F.3d 663, 668 (5th Cir. 2009).

Although we assume arguendo that federal prisoners have a liberty

interest in their good time credits, see Henson v. Bureau of Prisons, 213 F.3d 897,

898 (5th Cir. 2000),Watkins does not challenge the district court’s determination

that the BOP’s expungement of his disciplinary conviction and restoration of his

good time credits rendered his claim for damages legally frivolous. This issue

is therefore abandoned. See Hughes v. Johnson, 191 F.3d 607, 613 (5th Cir.

1999).

Watkins also contends that the district court erred when it dismissed his

equal protection claim. He asserts that the allegations in his complaint were

sufficient to show that Weston purposefully and intentionally discriminated

against him by refusing to issue him a copy of the DHO’s written report. In the

alternative, Watkins asserts that the district court erred when it dismissed his

3

 Case: 12-40722 Document: 00512217534 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/23/2013
No. 12-40722

equal protection claim without affording him an opportunity to amend his

complaint with the facts necessary to demonstrate purposeful and intentional

discrimination. 

The district court did not err in concluding that Watkins’s conclusory and

unsubstantiated allegations were insufficient to make a showing of purposeful

or intentional discrimination. Watkins alleged that Weston willfully

discriminated against him by refusing to issue him a copy of the DHO’s written

report while providing other similarly situated prisoners with copies of their

reports and that Weston’s acts were motivated “by the desire to prevent the

exercise of a constitutional right.” His conclusional allegations were insufficient

to raise a constitutional issue. See Koch v. Puckett, 907 F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir.

1990). Further, because Watkins has not identified the additional facts he would

have presented had he been granted an opportunity to amend his complaint, he

has failed to show any error. See Brewster v. Dretke, 587 F.3d 764, 768 (5th Cir.

2009).

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

4

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