### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 09- 30189 Su m m ar yC al endar

TR O Y JEN N I N G S , Pl ai nt i f f

- Appe l l ant

v. F ED ERALB URE AU OF PRI S ONS ; UNI T ED S T AT ES P RO BA T I ON DEPA RT M ENT, Br o o k l y n ; UNI TE D S TA TE S DEP ART M ENT OFJ UST I CE; U N I TE D STATES ATTORN EY’ S OFFI CE; CLERK , US DI STRI CT COU RT, B rookly n ; JO S E P H SM ITH , W arden , U S P

- L ew i sbu rg; M N IC H O LA S , C ase M anager , U SP

- Lew i sb urg; JO H N A D A M I , U ni tM anager , U SP

- Lew i sb urg; C O U N S E L O R M IS S I, U S P -L ew i sb u rg ; O U T LA W , W a rd en , U S P -B ea u m on t; FO X, W ar de n, U SP- Be a u m o n t ; M CGEE, Un itM a n a g e r , USP

- Be aum o nt ; CR U Z, C ou n selor, U S P -B ea u m on t; S A C H E R , U n i t M a n a g e r, U S P -B ea u m on t; J H AN K S, M ana ge r , U SP- Beau m o nt ; FRE D RI CKM EN I FE E, W ar de n, U S P -P oll oc k; JO E K E FF E R , W ar den, U S P -P oll ock ; KE N D E N F IE L D , A sso ci a te W a rd e n , U S P -P o ll o ck ; C R Y S T A L Z E R R , C -3 C a se M a n a g e r, U S P -P o ll o ck ; A -4 C A S E M A N A G E R RAY , U S P

- P ol l ock; K E N D A L L F R A N C O IS, C ou n sel or, USP

- Po l l o c k ; A- 4 COUNSEL OR LAI R, USP

- Po l l o c k ; C- 3 U NI T M ANAGER M ONT GOMER Y , US P

- P o l l o c k ; A- 4 UN I T M AN AG ER TOW NS END , U S P -P o llo c k , 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

- 1190 United States Court of App eals Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D November

12, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 09- 30189

Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not * be publishe d and is not precedent exceptunder the limited circu mstance s set forthin5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 2 B ef ore K IN G , B A R K S D A L E , an d G A R Z A , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R IA M: * Proc ee di ng pro se , T r o yJ e n n in g s , fe d e r a l p r is o n e r#6 7 9 4 9

- 0 5 3 , a p p e a ls t h e di sm i ssalof

hi s in for m ap a u

p er is(IFP ) com pl ai n t , f i l ed p u rsuan tt o Bi v e ns v. S ix Un kn ow n Nam ed Ag ents of t h e F ederal B u reau of

Narcot i cs , 403 U

. S. 388 ( 197 1) ( al l ow i n g federalof f i ci al s t o be suedf or c l ai m ed vi ol ati on s of constit u t i on alri gh t s)

. T h e d i st ri ctcou rtd i sm i ssed the cl ai m s f or l ack of

proper venue and f

orfai l ure t o s t at e acl ai m u pon w hi c h r el i ef can be gr ant ed, u nder28 U

. S

. C

. § 1915 ( e) ( 2) ( B ) ( govern i n g proceedi n gs in for m ap a u p er is ). Jen n i n gs contend s t h e B u reau of P ri sons based hi s c u st odi alcl assi f i cat i on a t t h e U n ite dS ta te s P e n ite n tia r yin P o l l o c k , L o u is ia n a , o n im p e r m is s ib le fac t o r s , i nc l udi ng e r r o ne o us de t e r m i nat i o ns o f Je nni ngs ’ hi s t o r y o f v i o l e nc e a nd h is la c k o f a G E D

. J e n n in g s a lle g e s h e w a s fo u n dn o t g u iltyo f th e s ta te a s s a u lt cha rge up on w h i ch the courtbased i t s det erm i n ati on of hi s h i st ory of vi ol en ce. T h e di sm i ssal , un der § 191 5( e) ( 2) ( B ) , of a pri soner’ s c om pl ai n tf or fai l u re t o s t at e ac l ai m upo n whi c h r e l i e f c an be gr ant e d i s r e vi e w e d de no vo . E

. g. , B err y v . Br ady , 1 9 2 F .3 d 5 0 4 , 5 0 7 (5 th C ir

. 1 9 9 9 ). “T o s u rv iv e a m o tio n to d is m is s , a com pl ai n tm u stcontai n suf f i ci en tfac tu alm att er, accept ed as tr u e, t o ‘ st ate a cl a i m f or re l i ef th a t is p l a u sibl e on its fa ce.’” Ash c r of tv . I qb al , 129 S. C t
. 1937, 19 49 ( 20 09 ) (c i t at i o n o m i t t e d)

. Bec ause t he r e i s no libe r t y i nt e r e s ti n a p r is o n e r ’ s cu s to d ia l cla s s ific a tio n , Wi lson v. B u d n ey , 976 F

. 2d957 , 958 ( 5th C i r. 1 9 9 2 ), J e n n in g s ’co m p la in t fa ils to s ta te acla im fo rre lie f. SeeHarr i s v. Hegm ann , 1 9 8 F .3 d1 5 3 , 1 5 6 (5 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ). Je nni ngs a l s o f

i l e d B i vens c l ai m s a gai n stde fe nda nt s i n N e w Yor k, P en n sylvan i a, an d T exas; t h e di st ri ctcourtdi sm iss ed these cl ai m s f or l ack of proper ven u e. Jen n i n gs does not c h al l en ge t h e di st ri ctcourt ’ s r eason s f orN o. 09- 30189

3 di sm i ssi n g t h ese c l ai m s. A ccor di n gl y, Je n n i n gs ha s aban don ed an y such
c h a lle n g e . S ee B ri n km an n v. D allas Cou n ty D epu ty S h erif f A bn er , 813 F. 2d 744, 7 4 8 (5 th C ir . 1 9 8 7 ). T h e d i st ri ctcou rt ’ s d i sm i ssalof Jen n i n gs’com pl ai n tf or fai l u re t o st ate a
c l ai m upon w hi c h re l i ef c an be gr anted co unts as a s t r i ke f orpurpo se s of

28 U .S .C . § 1 9 1 5 (g). S ee Ade pegb a v . Ham m o ns , 103 F

. 3d383 , 3 8 7 -8 8 (5th C i r. 199 6)

. W e cauti on Jen n i n gs: once he accum u l ates t h ree s t ri kes, he m ay n ot proceed IFP i n an y civi lact i on or ap pea lfi l ed w h i l e he i s i n carcer ated or det ai ned i n any fac i l i t y, u nl es s he “ i s under i m m i nentdan gerof ser i ous physi c al inju ry”. 2 8 U .S .C

. § 1 9 1 5 (g). AF F I RMED; S ANC T I ON WARNI NG I S S UED

.