* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate recor d, this three-judge panel has determined unanimously that oral argumentwould not be of material assistance in the determination of this appeal. Se e Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered sub mitted without oral argument. 

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

### APR 2 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

TENTH CIRCUIT
BOJIDAR GEROGIEV BAKALOV, Petitioner - Appellant, vs. O. LANE McCOTTER, Respondent - Appellee. No. 97-4023 (D.C. No. 96-CV-706) (D. Utah)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before PORFILIO , KELLY , and HENRY , Circuit Judges. **
Mr. Bakalov, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals fr om the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . He sought relief from an inmate disciplinary hearing officer’s finding that he sexually assaulted another inmate. In addition to challenging the hearing off icer’s finding and resulting 30-day sanction on due process grounds, he also cha llenged the conditions of his- 2 -

confinement. The magistrate judge determined that Mr. Bakalov’s action sounded under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and concluded that Mr. Bakalov co uld not proceed in forma pauperis because he had filed at least three prior civil actions that had been dismissed as frivolous or failing to state a claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g); see also Mapp v. Dovala , Nos. 97-8050, 97-8072, 97-8106, 1998 WL 116179, at *1 (10th Cir. Mar. 17, 1998). The magistrate judge re cognized that an inmate could file a § 1983 action in forma pauperis if the inmat e “is under imminent danger of serious physical injury,” 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g), but necessarily concluded that such was not the case. Thus, the magistrate judge recom mended that the petition be dismissed and that if Mr. Bakalov still wanted to b ring a § 1983 action he would be required to pay the full filing fee. The distri ct court agreed and Mr. Bakalov appealed. The district court denied him a certific ate of probable cause. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253. The district court correctly classified this actionas arising under § 1983 because it is simply not a collateral attack on the fact or duration of Mr. Bakalov’s confinement. See Wolff v. McDonnell , 418 U.S. 539, 554-55 (1974); Preiser v. Rodriguez , 411 U.S. 475, 499-500 (1973). Section 1983 is of little assistance to Mr. Bakalov, however, because his san ction does not appear to implicate due process, see Sandin v. Connor , 515 U.S. 472, 485 (1995), and his- 3 -

primary claim is barred under Edwards v. Balisok , 117 S. Ct. 1584, 1589 (1997), because it implies the invalidity of the disciplina ry hearing officer’s finding and sanction. With regard to the remaining conditions- of-confinement claims, the district court did not abuse its discretion in eval uating the petition and concluding that Mr. Bakalov was not under imminent danger of s erious physical injury. See Denton v. Hernandez , 504 U.S. 25, 33 (1992). Thus, the district courtdid not err in dismissing the petition and requiring Mr. Bakalo v to pay the $120.00 filing fee in advance if he wished to proceed under § 1983. APPEAL DISMISSED. All pending motions are DENIED. This appeal is frivolous under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and therefore c onstitutes a “prior occasion” within the meaning of that section.

Entered for the Court Paul J. Kelly, Jr. Circuit Judge