Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinionshould not * be publishe d an d is not precedent except under the limited circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 07- 60558 Su m m ar y Cal endar

M I CHE L ANG EL O MUS CO L I NO Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. M I CH AE L LA N D RU M , I nt e r nalAf fai r s I nve s t i ga t o r , i n hi s i n di vi dua la nd of f i c i alcap a ci ty; S H E R R YM A G G IT T , D i scipli n a ryC om m i t t ee , i n heri ndivi dual a n do ffic ia l ca p a c ity ; A N N E P E R K IN S , D is c ip lin a r y C o m m itt e e C h a ir p e r s o n , in h e rin d iv id u a l a n do ffic ia l ca p a c ity ; KR O B E R T S , A R P A dju d ic a to r , inh is i n di vid u a lan d of

f i ci alcapaci t y; R AYM O N D B Y R D , W arden , Secon d S t ep Res po nde nt , i n hi s i ndivi dua la nd o f f i c i alc apaci t y; CH RI STO PH ER EPP S, M i ssissi p p iD ep a rtm en t of C orre cti on s C om m i ssion er, T h i rdS tep R esp on d en t, i n h i s i n d ivid u a lan doff i ci a lcap a ci ty
D efen da n t s- A pp el l ees
A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f o rt he N o r t he r n Di s t r i c to f M i s s i s s i ppi U SD C N o. 4: 07- C V

- 40

B ef ore W IE N E R , ST E W A R T , an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Pl ai nt if f

- A ppell antM i ch elan ge l o M u scoli n o, M i ss i ss i ppipr i so ner# K 2799,
m o ve s t hi s c o ur tf

o rl e av e t o pr o c e e d i n f o r m a pa upe r i s ( I FP) o n a ppe alf r o m t he United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Februar y 18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 60558

2 d i sm i ssa lof h i s 42 U
. S
. C
. § 19 8 3 su i t w h i ch all eg ed tha t his con sti tu ti on a lri gh ts w ere vi ol ated i n conn ect i on w i t h a di sci pl i n ary case. T h e di st ri ctcourtden i ed M u scol i n o’ s r equ estt o proceed I F P on ap pea l , cer t i f yi n g t h at thi s app ealw as not t ak e n i n g o o d fai t h. M us c o l i no ’ s I FP m o t i o n i s ac hal l e nge t o t hatc e r t i f i c at i o n. S ee B augh v. T

aylor , 1 1 7 F .3d 1 9 7 , 2 0 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 2 ). As Mus c o l i n o r a i s e s ac l a i m o f c o n s p i r a c yf

o rt h e f i r s t t i me o n a p p e a l , we s h a ll n o t c o n s id e rit. S ee Le v e r e t t e v . Loui s v i l le Ladde rCo. , 183 F. 3d 339, 342 ( 5th C i r. 199 9)
. M u scol i n o’ s c l ai m t h at t h e defen da n t s fa il e d to f ol l ow pri son pr o c e dur e s a nd regu l at i o ns i s i ns uf f i c i e nt , w i t ho utm o r e , t o e s t ab l i s h a c o n s tit u tio n a l v io la tio n co g n iz a b le u n d e r§ 1 9 8 3
. S ee E d w ard s v. Joh n son , 209 F .3 d7 7 2 , 7 7 9 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 0 ). H is cla im th a t h e w a s re ta lia te da g a in s t fo rh is ref u salt o cooperat e i n t h e i n vest i gati on of an ot h er i n m ate i s f rivol ou s because t he Fi f t h A m endm ent ’ s pro t ec t i on agai nstsel f

- i ncr i m i nat i on i s pure l y pe r so nal a n d m a y n o t b e a s s e r te d o n b e h a lf o f a th ir dp a r ty
. S e e, e.g ., Calif ornia B an kers A ss ’ n v. S ch u ltz , 41 6 U
. S
. 21 , 55 ( 1 9 7 4 ). H i s c la im t h a t h i s reclass i fi ca ti on to m axim u m sec u ri t y an d h i s l oss of privi l eges v i ol ated h i s du e process ri gh t s does
n o t st a te a v io la tio n o f a c o g n iz a b le lib e r tyin te r e s t. S ee Hernan d ez v. V elasqu ez , 5 2 2 F .3 d 5 5 6 , 5 6 2 -6 4 (5 th C ir . 2 0 0 8 ); Mad i son v. Parker , 104 F. 3d 765, 767- 68 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); Moody v. B ak er , 8 5 7 F .2d2 5 6 , 2 5 7 -5 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 8 8 ). M u scol i n o ha s not show n t h at he w i l lpresent any non f rivol ou s i ssue on a p p e a l. Se eHo w ar d v
. Ki ng , 7 07 F
. 2d 2 15, 2 20 ( 5th C i r. 198 3)
. H i s m ot i on f or le a v e to p r o c e e dIF P is d e n ie d , a n dth is a p p e a l is d is m is s e da s fr i v o l o u s . S ee B augh , 1 1 7 F .3 da t2 0 2 n .2 4 ; 5 t h C ir . R . 4 2 .2 . O u rd i s m is s a l o f M u s c o li n o ’s ap pea las frivo lou s an d the di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof hi s c ivi lri gh t s s u i tf or fa il u re to s ta te acla im co u n t a s tw o s trik e s forp u rp o se s o f 2 8 U .S .C
. § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se eAde pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 1 0 3 F .3 d3 8 3 , 3 8 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 6 ). M u s c o l i n o is
w ar ned t hati f, purs uant t o § 1915( g) , he ac c um ul at es a t hi r d s t r i ke, he s hal lbe b a rred f rom pr oce ed i n g IF P w h i l e h e i s i n ca rcera tedo r d eta i n ed i n an y facil i ty u n le s s h e is u n d e rim m in e n t d a n g e ro f s e r io u s p h y s ic a l inju r y . S ee§ 1 9 1 5 (g). M OT I ON D ENI ED ; A P P EA L DI S M I S S ED ; S ANC TI ON W AR NI NG I S S UED
.