No. 99-20345

-1-

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-20345 Summary Calendar

WARREN PIERRE CANADY,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

WAYNE SCOTT, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division; GARY L. JOHNSON, Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division;

ED WHITEHEAD; M.B. THALER; R.J. PARKER; C.S. STAPLES;
T. MERCHANT,

Defendants-Appellees.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-970CV-1678

-------------------- March 23, 2000

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Warren Pierre Cana dy, Texas inmate #723784, appeals the

distr ict court’s dismissal as frivolous of his civil rights

complaint. He also challenges the court’s sanction which directs

the clerk of court to refuse to accept for filing any future

complaint of Canady which has not received judicial authorization.

We detect no abuse of the court’s discretion in dismissing the

complaint as frivolous. See McCormick v. Stalder , 105 F.3d 1059,No. 99-20345

-2-

1061-62 (5th Cir. 1997). Canady contends that due process requires

the prison grievance system to have similar minimum requirements as

the due process requirements for inmate disciplinary hearings. S ee

Wolff v. McDonnell

, 418 U.S. 539, 562-66 (1974). Canady’s argument

erroneously presumes the similarity of ci rcumstance between an

inmate facin g the deprivation of a protected constitutional

interest beca use he violated the prison’s rules and an inmate

seeking re dress concerning some aspect of his confinement. S ee

Mathews v. Eldridge , 424 U.S. 319, 332 (1976).

Canady argues that the district court erred in dismissing his

claim concerning the denial of due process in ten disciplinary

cases. No constitutional interest was implicated in the

disciplinary cases not involving the loss of good-time credit. S ee

Sandin v. O’Connor

, 515 U.S. 472, 484 (1995); Orellana v. Kyle

, 65

F.3d 29, 31-32 (5 th Cir. 1995). For the two disciplinary cases

involving the loss of good-time credit, Canady cannot raise a civil

rights claim seeking damages and declaratory relief without first

showing that the result of th e disciplinary proceedings at issue

have been overturned, expunged, or otherwise called into question.

Edwards v. Balisok , 520 U.S. 641, 648-49 (1997).

Canady’s challenge to the sanction is unpersuasive. S ee

Mendoza v. Lynaugh

, 989 F.2d 191, 195 (5th Cir. 1993) (reviewing

sanction for abuse of discretion). The district court did not

abuse its discretion by imposing the sanction. S ee Murphy v.

Collins , 26 F.3d 541, 544 (5th Cir. 1994).

Our re view of Canady’s litigation history, as listed by the

magistrate judge in the order to show cause, reveals one case whichNo. 99-20345

-3-

amounts to a 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) strike. S ee Canady v. Washington

,

No. 96-CV-1756 (S.D. Tex. Oct. 29, 1996) (dismissed pursuant to

Heck v. Humphrey

, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994)). Our affirmance of

the district court’s dismissal for frivolousness cr eates strike

two. See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 388 (5th Cir. 1996).

AFFIRMED.