* Local Rule 47.5 provides: "The publication of opinions

that have no precedential value and merely decide particular

cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law imposes

needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that Rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-40597

Conference Calendar

__________________

MICHAEL ARTHUR MAGOON,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

UNIDENTIFIED FIGUEROA, Warden; 

UNIDENTIFIED BRANCH, Dr, Beto II

Unit Physician; UNIDENTIFIED HUGHES, Nurse, 

Beto II Unit Nurse; UNIDENTIFIED NICHOLS,

Nurse, Beto II Unit Nurse; MEDICAL DEPT.,

Beto II Medical Dept,

 Respondents-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:95-CV-220

- - - - - - - - - -

(October 18, 1995)

Before POLITZ, Chief Judge, and REAVLEY and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Magoon argues that he was refused medical attention, that

the punishment imposed at his disciplinary hearing was too

severe, and that he was required to perform work beyond his

physical capacity. The writ of habeas corpus is the appropriate

federal remedy for a state prisoner challenging the fact or
No. 95-40597

-2-

duration of his confinement. Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475,

500 (1973). Section 1983 is the appropriate remedy for a

prisoner to attack illegal administrative procedures or

conditions of confinement. Cook v. Texas Dep't of Criminal

Justice Transitional Planning Dep't, 37 F.3d 166, 168 (5th Cir.

1994). Magoon's challenge to his prison disciplinary proceedings

and the resultant loss of his good-time credits was properly

asserted in a habeas petition because the loss of good-time

credits implicates the duration of Magoon's confinement and

resulted from a single allegedly defective hearing. See Preiser,

411 U.S. at 494, 500.

Magoon merely contends that the punishment imposed at his

prison disciplinary hearing was too severe. The requirements of

due process are satisfied, however, if "some evidence" supports

the decision by the prison disciplinary board to revoke good-time

credits. Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Inst. v.

Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).

The several charging officers' reports reflect that on four

separate occasions, Magoon refused to turn out for his work

assignment without a legitimate reason. Magoon stated that he

was too "sick" to work on each occasion. The disciplinary

hearing officer stated that he had relied upon the charging

officers' reports and Magoon's statements in determining that

Magoon was guilty. Another charging officer's report stated that

Magoon had threatened to inflict harm on prison employees and had

used vulgar language in reference to prison employees. The

disciplinary hearing officer relied upon the charging officer's
No. 95-40597

-3-

report and the testimony presented at the disciplinary hearing in

reaching a determination of Magoon's guilt. In each disciplinary

case, the hearing officer stated that the reason for the

particular punishment imposed was the nature of the particular

offense and Magoon's prior disciplinary history.

The decision of the disciplinary hearing officer was

therefore supported by "some evidence" in the record, namely the

charging officers' reports and the testimony presented at the

disciplinary hearings. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 455. The district

court thus did not err by denying Magoon's habeas petition.

The remainder of the issues Magoon raises on appeal, that he

was refused medical attention and was required to perform work

beyond his physical capacity, challenge the conditions of his

confinement and would be more properly asserted in a civil rights

action pursuant to § 1983 than in a habeas petition. See Cook,

37 F.3d at 168. We express no view as to whether there is any

merit to these claims. The judgment of the district court

denying Magoon's habeas petition and declining to consider his 

§ 1983 claims is affirmed. 

AFFIRMED.