Ramirez v. McQueen , 122 F. App'x 164 ( 2005 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT February 23, 2005
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 04-20529
Conference Calendar
JOE ADAM RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LETICIA G. McQUEEN; JOHN CASTILLO;
SALVADOR BUENTELLO, also known as Sammy Salvador,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. 4:04-CV-1986
--------------------
Before BARKSDALE, GARZA, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
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)(1).
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
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
No. 04-20529
-2-
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.