UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS For the Fifth Circuit

___________________________

No. 96-60372 ___________________________

DESMOND EARL PHILLIPS,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

STEVE PUCKETT, ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

___________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court For the Northern District of Mississippi Greenville Division (4:96-CV-59-S-B) ____________________________________________________ December 6, 1996

Before WISDOM, DAVIS, and DUHE’, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:1

Desmond Phillips appeals the district court’s sua sponte

dismissal under § 1915(d) of his § 1983 complaint filed pro se and

in forma pauperis alleging that following a prison disciplinary

hearing he was placed on close confinement where he has remained

for approximately three years without annual classification

reviews. We VACATE and REMAND for further proceedings consistent

1 Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4. with this opinion. I.

We review the district court’s Section 1915(d) dismissal of

Phillips' complaint for abuse of discretion. Graves v. Hampton,

(5th Cir. 1993). Section 1915(d) “authorizes federal

courts to dismiss a claim filed in forma pauperis ‘if satisfied

that the action is frivolous or malicious.’” Neitzke v. Williams,

,

(1989)(citing

).

Relying on Sandin v. Conner,

,

,

(1995), the district court dismissed Phillips’

complaint as frivolous. In Sandin, the Supreme Court held that

thirty days disciplinary confinement did “not present the type of

atypical, significant deprivation in which a state might

conceivably create a liberty interest." Sandin,

.

In contrast, Phillips’ allegation that he has been subject to

disciplinary confinement for three years without review arguably

presents an “atypical significant deprivation” that implicates a

liberty interest. Because the argument is not frivolous, we vacate

the district court’s dismissal of the suit and remand for

reconsideration following further factual development.

VACATED AND REMANDED.