### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 15

- 30059 Summary Calendar

MARK JACQUES , Petitioner

- Appellant

v. BUREAU OF PRISONS; WARDEN UNITED STATES PENITENTIARY POLLOCK , Respondents

- Appellee s

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 1:14

- CV

- 2745

Before WIENER, HIGGINSON, and COSTA, Circuit Judges. STEPHEN A. HIGGINSON, Circuit Judge : * Proceeding pro se an d in forma pauperis, Mark Jacques, federal prisoner # 75560

- 004, appeals the district court’s denial and dismissal o f his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding on the ground that his right to procedural due process was violated by the failure of prison officials to serve him with an incident report within twenty

- four hours of becoming

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED January 28, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 15-30059 Document: 00513360085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2016No. 15

- 30059

2 aware of his involvement in the incident , as set forth in a Bureau of Prisons regulation

. He asserts that, as a result of the disciplinary proceedings, he was unable to seek a transfer to a different facility and was placed in solitary confinement. He al so asserts that his commissary and visitation privileges were suspended

. In reviewing a denial of habeas relief , we review the district court’s legal conclusions de novo and its factual findings for clear error. Henson v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons , 213 F.3d 897, 898 (5th Cir. 2000). T he district court’s denial of relief may be affirmed on an y basis apparent in the record. Scott v. Johnson , 227 F.3d 260, 262 (5th Cir. 2000)

. To establish a due process violation, a prisoner must show that he was deprived of a liberty interest protected by the Constitution or other law. See Sandin v. Conner , 515 U.S. 472, 483

– 84 (1995). Not every punishment for prison misconduct implicates a protected liberty interest

. See i d . at 485

– 87

. As relevant here, “[t] he Due Proce ss Clause does not, by itself, endow a prisoner with a protected liberty interest in the location of his confinement , ” and “a pri soner has no liberty interest in being housed in any particular facility.” Yates v. Stalder , 217 F.3d 332, 334 (5th Cir. 2000) . Nor do the temporary loss of commissary and visitation privileges support a due process claim

. See Malchi v. Thaler , 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000) (“Clearly, Malchi’s thirty

- day loss of commissary privileges and cell restrictions do not implicate d ue process concerns.”) ; Berry v. Brady , 19 2 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 1999) (“Berry has no constitutional right to visitation privileges.”). In any event, Jacques’s a ssertion that his procedural due process rights were violated is based solely on the failure of prison officia ls to comply with a Bureau of Prisons rule providing that a prisoner “will ordinarily receive the incident report within 24 hours of staff becoming aware of [the prisoner’s] Case: 15-30059 Document: 00513360085 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/28/2016No. 15

- 30059

3 involvement in the incident.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a) (emph asis added)

. Even assuming that Jacques sufficiently allege d a violation of a prison regulation, a failure to follow such procedures does not necessarily “ establish a violation of due process, because ‘ constitutional minima may nevertheless have been met. ’ ” Jackson v. Cain , 864 F.2d 1235, 1251

– 52 (5th Cir. 1989 ) (citation omitted ). T he record does not reflect that prison officials failed to provide Jacque s with required due process protections

. S ee , e.g. , id. at 1252 (stating that a prisoner punished by solitary confinement and a loss of good

- time credits must receive (1) written notice of the charges at least twenty

- four hours before the hearing , (2) a written statement of the evidence and reasons for the punishment, and (3) the opportunity to call witn esses and present evidence in his defense); see also Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 563

– 70 (1974). In addition, Jacques has not shown that he was prejudiced by the failure of prison officials to strictly comply with the time frame provided in § 541.5(a) , especially since Jacques states that he received the incident report in less than thirty

- six hours

. See Mackey v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 440 F. App’ x 373, 374

– 75 (5th Cir. 2011) (“Collateral relief is not available for failure to comply with t he formal requirements of rules in the absence of any indication that the petitioner was prejudiced.”). For these reasons, t he judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 15-30059 Document: 00513360085 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/28/2016