IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20522

Summary Calendar

EDDIE LEWIS CARTER,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

LIEUTENANT BROWN; WARDEN GORDY; B. BARNETT; ERICK GALEAS,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:17-CV-3089

Before KING, SOUTHWICK, and ENGELHARDT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Eddie Lewis Carter, Texas prisoner # 443810, filed a complaint under 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 for alleged constitutional violations arising out of a disciplinary 

hearing. Carter contends that Correctional Officer Erick Galeas disliked him 

because he was Muslim. Carter alleges that Officer Galeas filed a false 

disciplinary charge against him for being “out of place” without authorization

and presented false evidence against him at the ensuing disciplinary hearing. 

 

* 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

June 4, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20522 Document: 00514983065 Page: 1 Date Filed: 06/04/2019
No. 18-20522

2

Carter further alleges that Lieutenant Brown conspired with Officer Galeas to 

violate procedural rules at the hearing and that Lieutenant Brown wrongly

found him guilty of the disciplinary infraction. Carter also contends that 

Grievance Officer Barnett inadequately investigated the incident and that 

Warden Gordy did not reverse the invalid conviction. 

The district court dismissed Carter’s complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) for failure to state a claim. We review a dismissal for failure to 

state a claim de novo and apply the standard used to review a dismissal under

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 678 

(5th Cir. 2009).

Carter argues that he was falsely charged and convicted at a hearing 

that violated established procedures, relied on false evidence, and resulted in 

the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. As punishment for his 

disciplinary infraction, Lieutenant Brown curtailed Carter’s commissary and 

recreation privileges, imposed bunk restrictions, and issued Carter a 

reprimand. Because Carter’s punishment does not implicate a protected 

liberty interest, he has not alleged a due process violation. See Sandin v. 

Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 483-84 (1995); Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th 

Cir. 2000); Madison v. Parker, 104 F.3d 765, 767-80 (5th Cir. 1997). To the 

extent that the punishment could affect his future ability to earn good-time 

credits, he has no protected liberty interest in the speculative and collateral 

consequences of the ruling. See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). 

And his claim that the punishment was cruel and unusual is unavailing 

because he does not allege that the punishment was disproportionate to the

alleged disciplinary offense or that he was deprived of the minimal measure of 

life’s necessities. Wilson v. Lynaugh, 878 F.2d 846, 848-49 (5th Cir. 1989).

 Case: 18-20522 Document: 00514983065 Page: 2 Date Filed: 06/04/2019
No. 18-20522

3

Carter further contends that Officer Galeas and Lieutenant Brown

conspired to convict him of false charges. However, his conclusory allegations 

do not state a cognizable conspiracy claim. See Rodriguez v. Neeley, 169 F.3d 

220, 222 (5th Cir. 1999); Cinel v. Connick, 15 F.3d 1338, 1343 (5th Cir. 1994). 

Carter also argues that the defendants sought to satisfy a quota system. But 

he did not present this argument to the district court and cannot raise it for 

the first time on appeal. See Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 

342 (5th Cir. 1999). In any event, Carter has not identified a policy or custom 

or alleged how any such policy or custom allowed or encouraged a 

constitutional violation. See Oliver v. Scott, 276 F.3d 736, 742-43 (5th Cir. 

2002).

Carter also alleges that Warden Gordy did not properly review the 

procedures used at the disciplinary hearing or the propriety of the conviction. 

However, because Carter has no constitutional right to have his claims decided

in his favor or reviewed pursuant to a process that is responsive to his alleged

wrongs, he has not raised a claim under § 1983. See Geiger v. Jowers, 404 F.3d 

371, 373-74 (5th Cir. 2005). Carter has not asserted any claim as to Grievance 

Officer Barnett and, accordingly, has waived any appellate argument. See 

Brinkmann v. Dall. Cty. Deputy Sheriff Abner, 813 F.2d 744, 748 (5th Cir. 

1987).

To the extent that Carter seeks to argue that he was falsely charged and 

convicted because he is Muslim, he has failed to assert a violation of the Equal 

Protection Clause. He has not identified any similarly situated prisoners who 

were treated differently or identified facts reflecting that the defendants were 

intentionally discriminatory. See Muhammad v. Lynaugh, 966 F.2d 901, 903 

(5th Cir. 1992). 

 Case: 18-20522 Document: 00514983065 Page: 3 Date Filed: 06/04/2019
No. 18-20522

4

The district court’s dismissal of Carter’s complaint counts as a strike for 

purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 

387-88 (5th Cir. 1996), abrogated in part on other grounds by Coleman v. 

Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1762-63 (2015). Carter is cautioned that if he 

accumulates three strikes, he will not be able to proceed in forma pauperis 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). 

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

 Case: 18-20522 Document: 00514983065 Page: 4 Date Filed: 06/04/2019