Case Name: Stanley Bruce COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry HARDY; Christopher Epps; Disciplinary Department; Dolan Waller, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-10-21
Citations: 78 F. App'x 392
Docket Number: No. 03-60347
Parties: Stanley Bruce COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry HARDY; Christopher Epps; Disciplinary Department; Dolan Waller, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 78
Pages: 392–393

Head Matter:
Stanley Bruce COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Larry HARDY; Christopher Epps; Disciplinary Department; Dolan Waller, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-60347.
Conference Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Oct. 21, 2003.
Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Stanley Bruce Coleman, Mississippi prisoner # 32612, appeals the dismissal of his civil-rights action against prison officials in which he alleged that his due-process rights had been violated in disciplinary hearings resulting in his loss of visitation privileges and his prison job. Coleman concedes that there is no constitutionally protected liberty interest in visitation but argues that his Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by not being allowed to attend the disciplinary hearing after which he lost his visitation rights. Coleman also argues that, although he had no constitutional liberty interest in his prison job, prison regulations created a liberty interest. Because Coleman's claims that he was denied due process during the disciplinary proceedings call into question the validity of the punishment Coleman received, those claims are not cognizable in a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 648, 117 S.Ct. 1584, 137 L.Ed.2d 906 (1997); Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994).
Coleman also argues that the district court erred in dismissing his complaint without an opportunity to amend or an evidentiary hearing. The district court did not err because Coleman has stated no viable claim. See Jones v. Greninger, 188 F.3d 322, 326-27 (5th Cir.1999). The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.