IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-40298

Summary Calendar

JED STEWART LINEBERRY,

Petitioner-Appellant

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS,

Respondent-Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CV-177

Before DAVIS, DeMOSS, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jed Stewart Lineberry, federal prisoner # 10296-078,is appealing from the

district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging

disciplinary action taken against him for the possession of anything

unauthorized. As a result of the disciplinary action, Lineberry lost 60 days of

visitation rights and his transfer to a less secure facility was suspended until he

served 180 days with clear conduct.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

September 26, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

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.

Case: 11-40298 Document: 00511612805 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2011
No. 11-40298

Lineberry argues that he was entitled to due process during the

disciplinary proceeding because he faced the potential loss of good time credits. 

He asserts that the punishment imposed was atypical for the violation involved

and further contends that there was no evidence presented to support the

finding of guilt. Lineberry’s argument that due process rights were triggered

because the disciplinary action involved the potential loss of good time is without

merit. See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). Nor did the

suspension of his transfer to a less secure facility that may have delayed his

opportunity to earn good time credits implicate a liberty interest because the

effect of the inmate’s prison classification on his ultimate release date is too

attenuated to give rise to the protection of the Constitution. See Malchi v.

Thaler, 211 F.3d 953, 958-59 (5th Cir. 2000). 

Because the disciplinary penalties imposed on Lineberry do not implicate

a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause, this court need not

address the substance of his argument challenging the sufficiency of the

evidence presented at his disciplinary proceeding. See Kentucky Dep’t of

Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 460-465 (1989). However, the

disciplinary hearing report reflects that the hearing officer relied on a

photograph of the contraband and the written statement of the officer who

discovered the contraband in a bag that was attached to a string leading directly

to Lineberry’s cell window. This introduction of “some evidence” to support the

finding of Lineberry’s guilt was sufficient to satisfy due process concerns. See

Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985).

Lineberry argues that he received an atypical punishment that was not

imposed on others who were similarly situated and, thus, he was denied equal

protection. Lineberry failed to make a showing that he was denied the benefit

of a fair disciplinary hearing based upon an improper discriminatory motive. See

Sonnier v. Quarterman, 476 F.3d 349, 367 (5th Cir. 2007). An equal protection

claim did not arise merely because the disciplinary action against Lineberry

2

Case: 11-40298 Document: 00511612805 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2011
No. 11-40298

resulted in an application or result that was inconsistent with the outcomes

resulting in disciplinary cases involving other inmates. See Thompson v.

Patteson, 985 F.2d 202, 207 (5th Cir. 1993).

Lineberry’s pleadings reflect that his cellmate and other inmates were

subject to disciplinary charges for possessing DVD players and DVDs. Although

he alleges that he was similarly situated to these other inmates because all of

the contraband was found in a common area, Lineberry’s situation differed in

that he had access to the contraband through his cell window. Lineberry failed

to state an arguable equal protection claim.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

3

Case: 11-40298 Document: 00511612805 Page: 3 Date Filed: 09/26/2011