*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of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, this 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. Therefore, the case is

ordered submitted without oral argument.

Plaintiff Chester Lyons, an inmate proceeding pro se, brought this 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action, alleging constitutional violations during his incarceration. 

The district court dismissed the action as frivolous 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 reclassifying him at a different security

level and transferring him to a different correctional facility, and that his

reclassification resulted in ex post facto punishment.

As a general rule, a prisoner has no legally protected 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 prisoners are

subject to reasonable limitations or restrictions in 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 in forma pauperis action

as frivolous if the 'claim [is] based on an indisputably meritless legal theory' or if

it is founded on 'clearly baseless' factual contentions." 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 order 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 counting "prior occasions" under

28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). The mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Mary Beck Briscoe

Circuit Judge