66 F3d 338 Hankins v. B Miller G Cd R C

66 F.3d 338

Billy J. HANKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Frank B. MILLER, Irving G. Jaquez, C.D. Hoiditch, R. Foshee,
C. Mitchell, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-1590.
(D.C.No. 94-S-2360)

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Sept. 12, 1995.

NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, or further order.

Before TACHA, LOGAN and KELLY, Circuit Judges.2

ORDER AND JUDGMENT1

1

Plaintiff-appellant Billy Hankins, an inmate appearing pro se, appeals the district court's dismissal of his 42 U.S.C.1983 claim that Defendants deprived him of his constitutional right to due process and equal protection. Mr. Hankins alleges that the district court erred by dismissing his claim as frivolous under 28 U.S.C.1915(d).

2

According to Mr. Hankins, the Defendants deprived him of his constitutional rights by altering his prison classification and regressively transferring him to a security administrative segregation prison without a hearing. "The Due Process Clause guarantees due process only when a person is to be deprived of life, liberty, or property." Templeman v. Gunter, 16 F.3d 367, 369 (10th Cir.1994). Since Mr. Hankins does not hold a liberty interest in his prison classification, see id., he was not deprived of due process when he was not afforded a hearing. As for his equal protection claim, Mr. Hankins fails to allege that he was treated differently because of any suspect classification, or alternatively, that he was treated differently than those similarly situated without regard to a legitimate penological purpose. Id. at 371. Hence, the district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing Mr. Hankins' 1983 claim under 28 U.S.C.1915(d). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327-28 (1989).

3

AFFIRMED.

1

This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's General Order. 151 F.R.D. 470 (10th Cir.1993)

2

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause therefore is ordered submitted without oral argument