Pursuant to 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should 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. 08- 60646 Su m m ar y Cal endar RO GE R J OHNS ON Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. RO G ER LEW I S, Capt ai n D efen da n t - A pp el l ee

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: 08- C V
- 24 B ef ore D AV IS, G A R Z A , an d P R A D O , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * R oger Joh n son, M i ssi ssi pp ipri son e r # 59 930 , app eal s f rom t h e di st ri ct cou rt’ s d i sm i ssa lw i th p reju d i ce of h i s 4 2 U . S . C . § 1 9 8 3 co m p l a i n t f or fail u re to st ate a cl ai m u pon w h i ch r el i ef m ay be gran t ed. B ecau se h e h as fai l ed to bri ef t he di s m i s s alo f

hi s c l ai m r e ga r di ng t he de ni al o f m e di c alt r e at m e nt , t hati s s ue i s d ee m ed a b a n d o n e d . S eeYoh eyv . Col l i ns , 985 F . 2d 222 , 224 –25 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 3 ). United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Jul y 2, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 60646

2 Joh n son argu es t h at t h e di st ri ctcourtfai l ed to properl y w ei gh an d assess t h e rel evan tfact ors regardi n g h i s c l ai m of excess ive f

orce. O u r revi ew i n di cat es th a t a ll o f th o s e fa c to r s w e ig h a g a in s t J o h n s o n ’ s e x c e s s iv e -fo r c e cla im . S ee H uds o n v . McMi l l i an, 503 U . S. 1, 5–7 ( 1992) . The r ec or d s how s t hatt her e w as a ne e d f o r t he ap pl i c at i o n o f f o r c e , Jo hns o n i gno r e d a c l e ar w ar ni n g r e ga r di ng t h e need f

or f orce, an d C ap t ai n R oger L ew i s’ s use of f orce w as a good-fai t h ef f ort to m a i n tainor resto re d i scipli n e. A s to h i s cl a i m reg a r d in gd e n ia l of a cces s to t h e court s, Joh n son’ s argum en t s t h at h e m ay hav e been prej u di ced by the l oss of cert ai n l egal m ater i al s fai l t o show t h e act u al prej u di ce requ i red t o su pp ort h is cla im . S ee L ew i s v. Casey , 5 1 8 U .S . 3 4 3 , 3 5 1

– 5 2 (19 9 6 ). R egard i n g h i s du e process cl ai m , Joh n son argu es f or t h e f i rstt im e on a p p e a l th a t t h e R u le V io la ti o n R e p o r t(R V R ) is s u e db yC a p ta in L e w is , in conj u n ct i on w i t h t w o other R V R s Joh n son receivedon other occ asi on s, res u l t ed i n hi s pl ac e m e nt i nt o D
- c us t o dy and ad m i ni s t r at ive l o c kdo w n. Tha ta r gum e nt is n o t c o g n iz a b le b e c a u s e it w a s n o t p r e s e n te dt o t h e d is tr ic t c o u r t. S ee L eMaire v. L a. D e

p’ tof Tr ansp. & D e v. , 480 F . 3d 383 , 387 ( 5th C i r. 200 7) . M oreover, even i f w e w ere t o c ons i dert hatar gum ent , i tfai l s t o i m pl i c at e apr ot ec t ed libert y i nt er es tbe c ause Jo hnson’ s pl ac em enti nt o D
- c ust ody and adm i ni st r at ive l o c kdo w n do no tpr e s e nta t yp i c al , s i gnif i c antde pr iva t i o ns i n r e l at i o n t o t he o r d in a r yin c id e n ts o f p r is o n life . S ee S an d i n v. Con n er , 5 1 5 U .S . 4 7 2 , 4 8 6 (19 9 5 ); Wi lson v. B u d n ey , 9 7 6 F .2 d9 5 7 , 9 5 8 ( 5 t h C ir . 1 9 9 2 ). A s th e d is t r ic tc o u r t ’s di s m i s s alo f

J o hns o n’ s c o m pl ai ntw as t he r e f o r e pr o pe r , the j u dgm e nto f t he d is tr ic t c o u r t is a ffir m e d . S ee Har r i s v . Hegm ann , 198 F .3d 153 , 156 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 9 ). T h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s d i sm i ssalof Joh n son’ s com pl ai n tcou n t s as a st ri ke f or p u r p o s e s o f 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee A d epegbav. Ham m on s, 103 F. 3d 383, 387 –88 ( 5th C i r. 199 6) . John son h as al readyaccum u l ated a t leastt w o ot h er s tr ik e s . S ee Jo h n son v. D orsey , N o . 4 :08 -C V -0 0 0 2 3 (N .D . M iss . A p r. 4 , 2 0 0 8 ); Joh n son v. Pres ley , N o . 4 :0 7 -C V -0 0 1 0 5 (N .D . M is s . J u l y2 6 , 2 0 0 7 ). J o h n s o n isN o. 08- 60646

3 t he r e f o r e b ar r e d f

r o m pr o c e e di ng i n f

o r m a pa upe r i s pur s uantt o § 1 91 5 w hi l e he i s i n carcer ated or detai n ed i n an y faci l i t y u n l ess h e i s un der i m m i n en tdan ger o 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; 2 8 U. S . C. § 1 9 1 5 ( g) B AR I M P OS ED .