IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-30158

Summary Calendar

LEROY ANTOINE LODGE,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

JAMES M. LEBLANC; JAMES KEITH DEVILLE; STACEY FERGUSON; 

LASALLE CORRECTIONS MANAGEMENT, L.L.C.,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 1:18-CV-1345

Before KING, GRAVES, and WILLETT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Leroy Antoine Lodge, Louisiana prisoner # 00105750, proceeding pro se 

and in forma pauperis (IFP), appeals the district court’s dismissal of his 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 

granted under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and 1915(A). To the extent that 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 3, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-30158 Document: 00515372110 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 19-30158

2

Lodge seeks a certificate of appealability (COA), a COA is not required to 

appeal the dismissal of a § 1983 complaint.

In his complaint, Lodge alleged that he was wrongfully convicted in a 

prison disciplinary action that resulted in a two-week suspension of his 

telephone and commissary privileges and violated his right to due process 

under the Fourteenth Amendment. Lodge’s punishment does not result in the 

atypical and significant hardship contemplated by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 

472, 484 (1995), and therefore does not implicate a protected liberty interest, 

see Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958 (5th Cir. 2000). Because the

punishment does not involve a protected liberty interest, Lodge cannot raise a 

plausible due process claim regarding his disciplinary proceeding. See 

Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U.S. 209, 221 (2005); see Meza v. Livingston, 607 F.3d 

392, 399 (5th Cir. 2010) (holding that this court need not consider whether the 

procedures that attended a punishment, which did not implicate a protected 

liberty interest, were constitutionally sufficient). His allegation that the 

handling of the disciplinary action violated state and prison regulations

likewise does not give rise to a constitutional violation under § 1983, see

Samford v. Dretke, 562 F.3d 674, 681 (5th Cir. 2009); Levitt v. Univ. of Tex. at 

El Paso, 759 F.2d 1224, 1230 (5th Cir. 1985) (state law), or establish a due 

process violation, see Jackson v. Cain, 864 F.2d 1235, 1251 (5th Cir. 1989).

For the first time, Lodge also alleges that the defendants violated his 

rights under the First, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments. See Leverette v. 

Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999) (declining to consider 

claims raised for the first time on appeal). Even though these claims were not 

raised in the district court, Lodge has not shown that he would be able to state 

a plausible claim for relief as to any of these issues. Thus, while the district 

court dismissed Lodge’s complaint without holding a hearing pursuant to 

 Case: 19-30158 Document: 00515372110 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/03/2020
No. 19-30158

3

Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179, 181-82 (5th Cir. 1985), overruled on other 

grounds by Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319 (1989), or requesting a more 

definite statement through a questionnaire, even if Lodge had been given an 

opportunity to further develop his claims, the allegations, viewed in the light 

most favorable to him, would not be sufficient to state a constitutional claim 

that was at least plausible on its face. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 

(2009); see Eason v. Thaler, 14 F.3d 8, 9-10 (5th Cir. 1994). Accordingly, the 

district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED.

The district court’s dismissal counts as a strike under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(g). See Coleman v. Tollefson, 135 S. Ct. 1759, 1763-64 (2015); Adepegba 

v. Hammons, 103 F.3d 383, 387-88 (5th Cir. 1996). Lodge has accrued at least 

one other strike. See Lodge v. Tigner, No. 18-30821, 2019 WL 2417356 (5th 

Cir. June 7, 2019) (affirming district court’s dismissal of Lodge’s IFP § 1983 

complaint for failure to state a claim); Lodge v. Tigner, No. 1:18-CV-248, 2018 

WL 3131039 (W.D. Tex. June 26, 2018) (district court judgment). Accordingly, 

he is WARNED that if he accumulates three strikes under § 1915(g), he may 

not proceed IFP in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or 

detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical 

injury. See § 1915(g).

AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING IMPOSED.

 Case: 19-30158 Document: 00515372110 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/03/2020