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- 60955 Su m m ar y Cal endar

LA TR EL L AD AM S , P l a i n ti ff

–A p p ell a n t,

v. CH RI STO PH ER EPP S, M D O C C o m m i s s i o ner; L AW RE N CE K EL LY , M SP Supe r i nt e nde nt ; D AR LE STE R FO STE R, D e put y W ar de n , 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 fo rth e N o r th e r n D is tr ic t o f M is s is s ip p i U SD C N o. 4: 07- C V

- 131

B e fo r e K IN G , D E N N IS , a n d O W E N , C ir c u it J u d g e s . P E R C U R I A M: * Lat r e l lAdam s f

i l e d a4 2 U
. S. C. § 1 98 3 l awsui ta ga i ns tv ar i o us M i s s i s s i ppi
s t a t e p r i s o n o f

f i c i a l s a l l e g i n gt h a th e s h o u l dh a v e b e e n t r a n s fe r r e df r o m a M i s s i s s i ppipr i s o n t o aK e nt uc kypr i s o n und e rt he In t er s t at e Cor r e c t i o ns C om pac t( I C C )

. The d i stri ctc our tdi sm i ss ed Adam s’ s l aw sui tpurs uant t o 2 8 U
. S. C

. § 1915( e) ( 2) ( B ) (i) , ( g) f orfai l ure t o s t at e ac l ai m on w hi c h re l i ef c oul d be gr ant e d. Adam s ha s a ppe al e d t he di s t r i c tc o ur t ’ s de c i s i o n, a r gui ng t hathe United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D June 24, 2 009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 07- 60955

2 s ho ul d b e t r ans fe r r e d b e c aus e hi s l i fe i s a tr i s k, a nd h e m o ve s t o e xp e di t e t he
a p p e a l. A da m s does not h ave an y consti t u t i on ali n t eresti n ed u cat i on alor
r e h a b ilita tio n p r o g r a m s p r o v id e db yth e p r is o n p u r s u a n t t o th e IC C

. S ee Esp a rz av. D ep u ty , N o . 9 3 -8 6 6 5 , 1 9 9 4 W L 1 2 2 1 5 8 (5 th C ir. M a r. 2 5 , 1 9 9 4 ). F u r th e r m o r e , A d a m s d o e s n o t h a v e a p r o te c ta b le p r o p e r tyo rlib e r tyin te r e s t in
w h e r e h e is h o u s e d
. S ee Mon t anye v. Haym es , 4 2 7 U .S

. 2 3 6 , 2 4 2 (1 9 7 6 ); Wi lson v. B u d n ey , 976 F. 2d 957, 958 ( 5t h C i r . 1992)

. Fi nal l y, A dam s has fai l ed t o a l l ege fac t s w hi c h war r antj udi c i ali nt e r ve nt i o n wi t h r e s pe c tt o t he pr i s o n’ s de c i s i o ns reg a rd i n g A d a m s’ s h ou singass i gn m en t. S ee Far m e rv . Br e nnan , 511 U
. S. 825, 8 3 3 (1 9 9 4 ); Ho rto n v. Co ck re ll , 7 0 F .3d 3 9 7 , 4 0 0 -0 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 5 ). T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof A da m s’ s c o m p la i n tf or f ai l u re t o st ate a
c la im co u n ts a s a s tr ik e fo r p u r p o s e s o f § 1 9 1 5 (g). Se eAde pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F
. 3d 383 , 387 ( 5th C i r. 199 6)

. A da m s i s cau t i on ed t h at on ce he accum u l ates t hr e e st r i ke s , he m ayno tpr o c e e d in for m ap a u p er is i n any c ivi l ac t i on o rappeal f i l e d w hi l e he i s i nc ar c e r at e d o r de t ai ne d i n any fac i l i t y unl e s s he i s un der im 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). AF F I RMED; M OT I ON T O EX P ED I T E AP P EA L DE NI ED ; SANCT I ON W AR NI NG I S S UED
.