Case Name: Joe Adam RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leticia G. McQUEEN; John Castillo; Salvador Buentello, also known as Sammy Salvador, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-02-23
Citations: 122 F. App'x 164
Docket Number: No. 04-20529
Parties: Joe Adam RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leticia G. McQUEEN; John Castillo; Salvador Buentello, also known as Sammy Salvador, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 122
Pages: 164–164

Head Matter:
Joe Adam RAMIREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leticia G. McQUEEN; John Castillo; Salvador Buentello, also known as Sammy Salvador, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 04-20529.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided Feb. 23, 2005.
Joe Adam Ramirez, Midway, TX, pro se.
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joe Adam Ramirez, Texas prisoner # 636417, appeals from the dismissal of his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action as frivolous and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(l). Ramirez contends that his continued confinement in administrative segregation violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment. We review the district court's judgment de novo, see Velasquez v. Woods, 329 F.3d 420, 421 (5th Cir.2003), and we find no error.
First, Ramirez has failed to allege a protected liberty interest that was violated by his placement in administrative segregation due to classification as a gang member, see Pichardo v. Kinker, 73 F.3d 612, 613 (5th Cir.1996), by the failure of officials to remove information about his gang affiliation from his prison records, see Velasquez, 329 F.3d at 421-22, or by any possible delays in Ramirez being considered for release on parole or mandatory supervision. See Malchi v. Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 957, 959 (5th Cir.2000). Second, Ramirez has failed to allege facts suggesting that the conditions of confinement in administrative segregation reflect deliberate indifference to his basic human needs. See Harper v. Showers, 174 F.3d 716, 719 (5th Cir.1999). Finally, Ramirez is warned that the district court's dismissal of his action counts as one strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g) and that once he accumulates three strikes he will be barred from proceeding in forma pauperis 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." 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g).
AFFIRMED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
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.