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-Appellees

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 and in forma pauperis, Mark Jacques, federal prisoner 

# 75560-004, appeals the district court’s denial and dismissal of 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 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

January 28, 2016

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 15-30059 Document: 00513360085 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/28/2016
No. 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 also 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). The district court’s denial 

of relief may be affirmed on any 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 id. at 485–87. 

As relevant here, “[t]he Due Process Clause does not, by itself, endow a 

prisoner with a protected liberty interest in the location of his confinement,”

and “a prisoner 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 due process concerns.”); Berry v. Brady, 192 F.3d 504, 508 (5th Cir. 

1999) (“Berry has no constitutional right to visitation privileges.”). 

In any event, Jacques’s assertion that his procedural due process rights 

were violated is based solely on the failure of prison officials 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: 01/28/2016
No. 15-30059

3

involvement in the incident.” 28 C.F.R. § 541.5(a) (emphasis added). Even 

assuming that Jacques sufficiently alleged 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). The

record does not reflect that prison officials failed to provide Jacques with 

required due process protections. See, 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 witnesses 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 the formal 

requirements of rules in the absence of any indication that the petitioner was 

prejudiced.”). 

For these reasons, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

 Case: 15-30059 Document: 00513360085 Page: 3 Date Filed: 01/28/2016