*This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the (continued...) 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### OCT 28 1997 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT

CHESTER C. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. JAMES SAFFLES; LARRY FIELDS, Director of Department of Corrections; RON WARD, Warden of O.S.P.; DELORES RAMSEY, also known as Delose Ramsy, Deputy Director of D.O.C.; MICHAEL CODY, also known as Michell Cody, Warden, Warden of Lexington Correctional Center; ERICKA DUNN, Unit Manager of Lexington Correctional Center; ED MADDEN, Case Manager L.C.C.; BOBBY BOONE, Warden, Mack Alford Correctional Center; JIM WALLACE, Unit Manager at MACC; RON CHAMPION, Warden at Dick Connors Correctional Center (DCCC); TIM POZVIC, Unit Manager at DCCC; ANITA VOOTEN, Case Manager at DCCC, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-7031 (D.C. No. CV-95-190-B) (E.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT ** (...continued)

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. -2- Before ANDERSON, HENRY, and BRISCOE, Circuit Judges

.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. There fore, the case is ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff Chester Lyons, an inmate proceeding pro s e, brought this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging constitutional violations during his incarceration. The district court dismissed the action as frivolou s under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). On appeal, Lyons contends prison officials violated his due process and Eighth Amendment rights by reclassifyin g him at a different security level and transferring him to a different correctio nal facility, and that his reclassification resulted in ex post facto punishme nt. As a general rule, a prisoner has no legally protec ted property or liberty interest in a particular security classification or the location of confinement. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Due process rights of priso ners are subject to reasonable limitations or restrictions i n light of legitimate security-3-

concerns. Penrod v. Zavaras , 94 F.3d 1399, 1406 (10th Cir. 1996). "Under § 1915(d), a district court may dismiss an i n forma pauperis action as frivolous if the 'claim [is] based on an indispu tably meritless legal theory' or if it is founded on 'clearly baseless' factual content ions." Schlicher v. Thomas , 111 F.3d 777, 779 (10th Cir. 1997) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams , 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989)). We review the district court's § 1915(d) order of dismissal for abuse of discretion, Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992), and affirm for substantially the same reasons set forth in its ord er dated January 7, 1996. AFFIRMED. This appeal is frivolous or fails to state a claim under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) or (ii) for purposes of c ounting "prior occasions" under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The mandate shall issue forth with. Entered for the Court Mary Beck Briscoe Circuit Judge