P u rsuan t t o 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5, t h e courtha s det erm i n ed that t h i s opi n i on * shou l d n otbe pu bl i shed an d i s not preceden texcept u n der t h e l i m i t ed c i r c um s t anc e s s e tf

o r t h i n 5 T H C IR . R. 47. 5. 4. 

### INTHE UNITED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHEFIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 31090 Su m m ar y Cal endar AN D RE W W O LTE RS, Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant
v. FE DERALBUREAU OF P RI S ONS; F RED M ENI FE E; J OE KEF FE R; DI RE CT OR S OUT H CE NT RA L R EG I ONA L OF F I CE ; HAR L EYG LAPP I N; G M A L D O N A D O , J R ., 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 ort he W es t er n D i st r i c tof Loui si ana U SD C N o. 1: 08- C V
- 837 B ef ore G A R Z A , C L E M E N T , an d O W E N , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * A n drew W ol t ers, federalpri soner # 100 10-12, m oves f or l eave t o proceed i n f orm a pa u peri s (IFP ) t o app ealt h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof hi s B i ve ns v . S ix Un kn ow n Nam ed Agents of F ed. B u re a u of

Narcot i cs , 4 0 3 U .S . 3 8 8 (19 7 1 ), c o m p l ai nta s f

r iv o l o u s a n df

o rfa i l u r e t o s t a t e ac l a i m p u r s u a n tt o 2 8 U. S . C. § § 1 9 1 5 & 1 9 1 5 A . W o lt e r s ’s m o t io n is ac h a ll e n g e to th e d i s t r ic tc o u r t ’s United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

5, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 31090

2 c e r t i f i c at i o n t hathi s a ppe ali s no tt ak e n i n go o d fait h. See B augh v. T aylor , 117 F .3 d1 9 7 , 2 0 2 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ). O n appeal , W ol t er s r eit er at es t hatpr i so n of f i c i al s ( 1) s ubj ec t ed hi m t o a n u n reasona bl e ri sk of ha rm an d acted w i t h d e lib e ra t e i n di f ference w h en t h ey a s s ig n e dh im to a p r is o n u n it t h a t h o u s e dg a n g -a ffilia te din m a te s ; (2 ) fo r c e dh im t o w ork t h rough th e use of “ gan gba n ger” t h reat s, w h i ch h e contended am ou n t ed to sl a ve ry ; an d( 3 ) f

i l edfalse d i scipli n a ryre p orts i n retali a ti on f or h i s refu sa lto w o r ka n dfo rfilin gg r ie v a n c e s a g a in s t p r is o n s ta ff. W ol t ers can n otprevai lon h i s fai l u re- t o- protec tcl ai m becau se he does n ot al l ege t h at he suf

fered an act u alph ysi cali nj u ry res u l t i n g f rom p ri son of

f i ci al s’ p u r p o r te dfa ilu r e t o p r o te c t. S ee Jon es v. G reni nger , 188 F . 3d322 , 326 ( 5th C i r. 1999) . To the extent th at W ol t ers soug h ti nj u n ct ive re li e f, t h e den i alof such r e l i e f wa s pr o pe rb e c aus e W o l t e r s ha s b e e n t r ans fe r r e d o uto f t he s pe c i alho us i ng u n i tat P ol l ack an d, t h u s, i s no l on ger i n an y da n ger from gan g- af f i l i ated in m a te s h o u s e dth e r e . S ee G eiger v. Jow ers , 4 0 4 F .3d3 7 1 , 3 7 5 (5 th C ir. 2 0 0 5 ). W e si m i l arl y rej ectW ol t ers’ s asser t i on t h at pri son of f i ci al s vi ol ated B u reau of

P ri son p ol i cy by assi gn i n g h i m t o a un i tth a t h ou sed gan g- af f i l i ated i n m ates. E ven if

such a pol i cy exi st ed, vi ol ati on s of pri son rules or regulat i on s, w ith o u t m o r e , d o n o t g iv e ris e to aca u s e o f a c tio n . S ee Her n a n d ez v . Este lle , 788 F . 2d115 4, 115 8 ( 5th C i r. 198 6) . M oreover, “ a pri son i n m a te d o e s n o tha ve a protec t able l ibert y or propert y i n t eresti n h i s cu st odi alcl assif i cat i on ” an d d oes n o t h a v e aco n s tit u tio n a l rig h t t o b e h o u s e dinap a r tic u la rfa c ility . Ne als v. Norw ood , 5 9 F .3 d5 3 0 , 5 3 3 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 5 ); s e eals o O l i m v . W ak i ne ko na , 461 U . S. 2 38 , 24 4- 45 ( 19 83 ) (f i ndi ng t hat “ c o nvic t i o n [] s uf f i c i e nt l y e xt i ngu i s he [ s ] t he d efen d a n t’ s l ib ertyi n teres t t o em p ow er th e S ta te t o c on fi n e h i m i n an y o f i ts p riso n s” (cita tion om itted )). T o th e ex ten t th a t W olt ers a ve rs th a t p ri son o ff i ci a l s d en i edh i s req u ests to be rea ssign edto a d i ff ere n t un i t of

the pr i son be ca u se o f reta l i a toryi n ten t,N o. 08- 31090

3 an d d el iberately perm i t t ed hi m t o be h ou sed w i t h gan g- af f i l i ated i n m ates as a ret al i ator y act , t h i s c l ai m fai l s because W ol t ers h as not presented an y evi den ce t hata ny pr i s o n o f

f i c i ala c t e d wi t h ar e t ali at o r y m o t ivea nd h as not all egeda c hr o no l o gyo f

e ve nt s f r o m w hi c h ar e t ali a t o rymo tiv emi gh tpl aus ibly bei nfe r r e d. S ee Jon es , 1 8 8 F .3 da t 3 2 5 . A l th ou gh W olt ers av ers t h a t h e w a s reta l i a ted a ga i n st for re fu s in gto w o r k, i nm at e s dono tha veac o ns t i t ut i o nalr i ghtt o r e f us e t o w o r k a nd r e f

us i ng t o w o r k i s no tt he ex e r c i s e of a sp e c i f

i cco ns t i t ut i o nalri ghta nd c anno tf o r m t he b a s is fo rare ta lia tio n cla im . S ee Joh n son v. R od rigu ez , 11 0 F . 3 d29 9 , 31 0 ( 5 th C ir . 1 9 9 7 ); Mu rray v. Mi ss. D ep’ tof Corr. , 9 1 1 F .2d1 1 6 7 , 1 1 6 7 -6 8 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). W ol t ers’ s asser t i on t h at he w as f orced t o w ork t h rough t h e u se of “ gan gba n ger” t h reat s r em ai n s t oo v agu e to est abli sh that he i s bei n g sub j ect ed to “ sl avery” or “i n vo l u n taryserv i tu d e.” SeeCh a n n erv. Ha ll , 112 F . 3d214 , 217
- 18 (5t h C i r. 1 9 9 7 ); W

ats on v. G raves , 9 0 9 F .2d1 5 4 9 , 1 5 5 2 (5t h C ir. 1 9 9 0 ). T o t h e ext en tt h at W ol t ers’ s fa lse di sci pl i n ary cl ai m cal l ed i n t o qu est i on t h e val i di t y of

t h e pri son d i sci pl i n ary pr o ce e d ings, t h e di st ri ctcourtdi d n ot abuse i t s di sc r et i on i n di sm i ss i ng t he c l ai m bec ause W olt er s fai l ed t o sho w t hat t he di sc i pl i nary c onvi c t i ons had bee n r eve r se d orex pun ged as r equi r ed by Heck v . H u mph rey, 5 1 2 U .S . 4 7 7 , 4 8 6 -8 7 (1 9 9 4 ). S ee E d w ard s v. B ali sok , 5 20 U . S. 641, 646- 48 ( 1997) . W olt ers’ s as sertion tha t th e false disci p l i n a ryrep orts in c r e a s e dh is c u s to d yc la s s ific a tio n is in s u ffic ie n t t o e s ta b lis h av io la tio n o f h is c o n s tit u tio n a l rig h ts . S eeNea ls , 5 9 F .3 da t 5 3 3 ; Wi lson v. B u d n ey , 976 F. 2d 957, 9 5 8 ( 5 t h C i r . 1 9 9 2 ) . T h e d i s mi s s a lo f t h e a b o v e c l a i ms i s A F F I RMED. H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e a n in m a te is n o t r e q u i r e d t o d e m o n s tr a te afa v o r a b le o ut c o m e o f

adi s c i pl i nary c as e if, a s he r e , he i s all e gi ng a r e t ali at o r y m o t ive , t he di st r i c tc our tabus ed it s di sc r et i on i n di sm i ss i ng any s uch c l ai m as bar r ed by Heck . S eeW

o o d s v . S m ith , 6 0 F. 3d1 16 1, 1 16 4- 66 ( 5t h Ci r . 1 99 5) . Thus , i n li ght of t h e f oregoi n g, t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s c ert i f i cat i on t h at W ol t ers’ s m ot i on t o proceedN o. 08- 31090

4 IF P on ap p ea lw a s n ot tak en i n go odfa ith w a s erro n eo u s. W h eth er th e facts u l ti m a tel y esta b l i sh a re tali a toryd i scipli n a ryre p ort cl a i m is n ot a q u estionto b e a n s w e r e da t th is s ta g e o f th e p r o c e e d in g s . Se eHo w ar d v . Ki ng , 707 F. 2d 215, 220 (5t h C i r. 198 3) . Th e di st ri ctcourt ’ s di sm i ssalof t h e ret al i ator y i n t erf erence cl ai m i s VA C A T E D an d R E M A N D E D f or f u rth er proc eedi n gs. Appe l l ant ’ s m o t i o n t o pr o c e e d in for m ap a u p er isi s GRANT ED .