* 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should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-10855

Summary Calendar

ROBERT RUEAL AMAYA

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

NFN RICHARDSON, Sergeant, in individual and official capacities

Defendant-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:04-CV-775

Before JOLLY, CLEMENT, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Robert Rueal Amaya, now Texas prisoner # 264274, appeals the district

court’s dismissal, pursuant to FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6), of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983

lawsuit against Arlington, Texas,Police Officer Sergeant Richardson. We review

the district court’s dismissal de novo. See In re Katrina Canal Breaches

Litigation, 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 1230 (2008).

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 19, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 07-10855

2

Amaya first renews his argument that Sgt. Richardson violated his First

Amendment right to free speech by refusing to allow him to file a formal

complaint with the Chief of Police, Internal Affairs Division (I.A.D.), or the

F.B.I., then placing him in a one-man cell with a video camera pointed at him to

retaliate against him and deter him from exercising his First Amendment rights.

Amaya presents no authority to support his conclusional allegation that

the failure to permit him to complain personally to the Chief of Police,the I.A.D.,

or the F.B.I. about his arrest immediately following his arrest violated his First

Amendment rights. Moreover, Amaya’s own pleadings show that the jail

administrator heard his complaint and that he subsequently filed formal

complaints with both the I.A.D. and the F.B.I.. The First Amendment claim was

properly dismissed. See Pell v. Procunier, 417 U.S. 817, 822 (1977); Stefanoff v.

Hays County, Texas, 154 F.3d 523, 527 (5th Cir. 1998). Moreover, because Sgt.

Richardson’s conduct in fact did not deter him from exercising his First

Amendment rights to file grievances with the I.A.D. and F.B.I., the retaliation

claim fails. See Morris v. Powell, 449 F.3d 682, 686 (5th Cir. 2006). Amaya’s

new claims that Sgt. Richardson denied him access to the courts and conspired

with Lt. Canas to deprive him of privileges in retaliation for exercising his First

Amendment rights, which claims are raised for the first time on appeal, will not

be considered. See Stewart Glass & Mirror, Inc. v. U.S. Auto Glass Discount

Centers, Inc., 200 F.3d 307, 316-17 (5th Cir. 2000); Leverette v. Louisville Ladder

Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999).

Amaya additionally argues that the district court erred in dismissing his

due-process claim against Sgt. Richardson, urging that his arbitrary transfer to

a punitive single-person cell without notice or a hearing violated his

constitutional rights. Contrary to his assertion, the district court correctly

concluded that the change in cell assignment did not implicate due process

concerns. See Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 478, 486 (1995). Inasmuch as he

complains that the transfer to a single-person cell was the equivalent of being
No. 07-10855

3

placed in administrative segregation, the claim fails. See Pichardo v. Kinker, 73

F.3d 612, 612 (5th Cir. 1996).

The district court’s judgment dismissing the claims against Sgt.

Richardson is affirmed. The motion for the appointment of counsel is denied.

AFFIRMED; MOTION DENIED.