Coleman v. Hardy , 78 F. App'x 392 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                                        United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    F I L E D
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT                 October 21, 2003
    Charles R. Fulbruge III
    Clerk
    No. 03-60347
    Conference Calendar
    STANLEY BRUCE COLEMAN,
    Plaintiff-Appellant,
    versus
    LARRY HARDY; CHRISTOPHER EPPS;
    DISCIPLINARY DEPARTMENT; DOLAN WALLER,
    Defendants-Appellees.
    --------------------
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Southern District of Mississippi
    USDC No. 3:03-CV-15-BN
    --------------------
    Before KING, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    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
    *
    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    that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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. 03-60347
    -2-
    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 (1997);
    Heck v. Humphrey, 
    512 U.S. 477
    , 486-87 (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.
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-60347

Citation Numbers: 78 F. App'x 392

Judges: Jolly, King, Per Curiam, Stewart

Filed Date: 10/20/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/1/2023