# Brown v. Thompson

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · August 26, 1996 · 96 F.3d 1443

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10219

## Case

- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** August 26, 1996
- **Citations:** 96 F.3d 1443; 1996 WL 511960
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10219

## Opinion text

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-20538
Conference Calendar

ALFRONZO BROWN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

S. THOMPSON, Sgt.,

Defendant-Appellee.

- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. CA-H-95-5386
- - - - - - - - - -
August 22, 1996
Before KING, DUHÉ, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Alfronzo Brown (#627935) appeals the dismissal of his civil

rights complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d), now

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)(i). Brown contends that appellee deprived him of

his liberty by writing a false disciplinary report in retaliation

against him for using the prison’s grievance procedures.

We have reviewed the record and Brown’s brief and find no

reversible error in the reasoning set forth by the district

*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 96-20538
- 2 -

court. Brown v. Thompson, No. CA-H-95-5386 (S.D. Tex. May 17,

1996). Brown has failed to produce direct evidence of motivation

or allege a chronology of events from which retaliation may

plausibly be inferred. Woods v. Smith, 60 F.3d 1161, 1165 (5th

Cir. 1995), cert. denied, 116 S. Ct. 800 (1996). The discipline

imposed upon Brown, i.e.., loss of status, limited commissary

privileges, and the transfer to another facility, did not

infringe on a protected liberty interest that would implicate due

process concerns. Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2300-01

(1995). Further, we find that Brown’s appeal is frivolous, and

accordingly, we DISMISS it pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 42.2.

We caution Brown that any additional frivolous appeals filed

by him will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid

sanctions, Brown is further cautioned to review any pending

appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are

frivolous.

APPEAL DISMISSED. SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10219. Public record. Not legal advice.