IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-30323

Summary Calendar 

JESSIE LEE PERRY, 

Plaintiff-Appellant 

v. 

ANTHONY ALLEMAND, Security Warden; KRYSTLE SIMON, Programs 

Manager; ALLEN CORRECTIONAL CENTER; KEITH COOLEY, WARDEN; 

JAMES M. LEBLANC, Secretary of Department of Corrections; GEO GROUP, 

INCORPORATED, 

Defendants-Appellees 

Appeal from the United States District Court 

for the Western District of Louisiana 

USDC No. 2:14-CV-3090

Before REAVLEY, OWEN, and ELROD, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Jessie Lee Perry, Louisiana prisoner # 109014, proceeding in forma 

pauperis (IFP), filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Allen Correctional 

Center Assistant Warden Anthony Allemand, Warden Keith Cooley, Officer 

Krystle Simon, GEO Group, Inc., and Louisiana Department of Corrections 

 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 21, 2017

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 16-30323 Document: 00513962468 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/21/2017
No. 16-30323

2 

Secretary James LeBlanc. Perry alleged that the defendants violated his 

Fourteenth Amendment due process and equal protection rights because, 

before returning to the general inmate population after completing a 

disciplinary punishment, he was required by the administrative segregation 

review board to wear a red and white striped jumpsuit for 30 days, be placed 

on a special tier in Jupiter Unit for six months, and have his contact visitation 

privileges taken away for an additional six months because this was his third 

conduct report. The district court dismissed Perry’s complaint with prejudice 

as frivolous and for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 

An in forma pauperis complaint may be dismissed as frivolous pursuant 

to § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) if it has no arguable basis in law or in fact. Geiger 

v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 371, 373 (5th Cir. 2005). Such dismissals as frivolous are 

reviewed for abuse of discretion. Id. A dismissal for failure to state a claim 

upon which relief may be granted under § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) is reviewed under 

the same de novo standard as a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). Black v. Warren, 134 F.3d 732, 733-34 (5th Cir. 1998). 

“When a district court dismisses a complaint both as frivolous and as failing to

state a claim under §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) & (ii), we review the dismissal de novo.” 

Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 (5th Cir. 2009). 

The additional sanctions of which Perry complains, being required to 

wear a particular jumpsuit for 30 days, being housed in a special tier for six 

months, and having contact visitation privileges taken away for six months, 

do not impose the type of atypical and significant hardship that would give rise 

to a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. See Sandin 

v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995).

 Case: 16-30323 Document: 00513962468 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/21/2017
No. 16-30323

3 

Perry’s real complaint is that according to the rules and regulations 

governing the prison, the administrative segregation review board, as opposed 

to the original disciplinary board, allegedly did not have the authority to 

impose additional sanctions when it reviewed his case and determined whether 

and under what conditions Perry could be released from administrative 

segregation and returned to the general population. Perry is not 

constitutionally entitled to have the prison follow its own rules. See Myers v. 

Klevenhagen, 97 F.3d 91, 94 (5th Cir. 1996); Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 

1251 (5th Cir. 1989). 

As for his claim of a denial of equal protection, Perry does not contend 

that he is a member of a protected class for equal protection purposes. Rather,

he asserts that he was singled out. An equal protection claim may be brought 

by a “class of one” if the plaintiff alleges that there was intentionally different 

treatment of other similarly situated persons and that there was no rational 

basis for the different treatment. Village of Willowbrook v. Olech, 528 U.S. 

562, 564-65 (2000). “[A]bsent any allegation of improper motive, a mere claim 

of inconsistent outcomes in particular, individual instances furnishes no basis 

for relief based on the denial” of equal protection. Thompson v. Patteson, 985 

F.2d 202, 207 (5th Cir. 1993). Perry has not alleged any improper motive by 

the defendants. 

The district court did not err in dismissing Perry’s complaint as frivolous 

and for failure to state a claim. See Black, 134 F.3d at 733-34; Geiger, 404 F.3d 

at 373; Samford, 562 F.3d at 678.

Perry’s appeal is without arguable merit and is frivolous. See Howard 

v. King, 707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). Because the appeal is frivolous, 

it is DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2. Perry is informed that the dismissal 

of this appeal as frivolous and the district court’s dismissal count as strikes for 

 Case: 16-30323 Document: 00513962468 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/21/2017
No. 16-30323

4 

purposes of § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th 

Cir. 1996). Perry is WARNED that once he accumulates three strikes, he may 

not proceed IFP 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).

APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTION WARNING 

ISSUED. 

 Case: 16-30323 Document: 00513962468 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/21/2017