### IN THE UNI TED STAT ES COURT OFAPPEALS FOR THE FIF TH CIRCU IT

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, i s ap p e alin g f ro m th e district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging disciplinary a c t i o n taken against him for the possession of anything

un a u t h o ri z e d

. 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. U n i te d S ta te s C o u rt o f A p p ea l s F i ft h C i rc u i t 

### F I L E D Sep tem ber 2 6, 2 011 Lyle W . Cayce Clerk

Purs uant to 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 , the cour t hasd ete rm inedt hat this op inion sho uld not * be publ ish ed and is not pr ece dent excep t unde r the lim ite d cir cum st ance s se t forth in 5 T H C IR

. R. 47.5 .4. Case: 11-40298 Document: 00511612805 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/26/2011No. 11-40298

Lineberry argues that he wa s e n t it led 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 c o n t e n d s that there was no evidence presented to support the finding of guilt. Lineberry’s argument that due process rights w e r e triggered because the disciplinary action involved the potential loss of good time is without merit. See Luken v. Scott , 7 1 F

. 3 d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1995). Nor did the suspension of his tra n s f er to a less secure facility that may have delayed his opportunity to earn good time credits implicate a liberty i nterest because the effect of the inmate’s p ri s o n classification on his ultimate release date is too attenuated to give ri s e to the protection of the Constitution. See Malchi v. Thaler , 211 F.3d 953, 958-59 (5th Cir. 2 000). Because the disciplinary penalties imposed on Lineberry do not implicate

a libe r ty i n t e r est protected by the Due Process Clause, this court need not address the substance of his argument challenging the suff i c i ency of the evidence presented at his disciplinary proceeding. Se e K entucky Dep’t of Corrections v. Thompson , 490 U.S. 454, 460-465 (1989). However, the disci p l i n a ry hearing report reflects that the hearing officer relied on a photograph of the contraband and the written stateme nt 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 sa t i s fy due process concerns. See Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). Lineberry argues that he received a n a typical 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 im p ro p er 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 acti o n a g ainst Lineberry
2 Case: 11-40298 Document: 00511612805 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/26/2011No. 11-40298

resulted in an applic a t i o n o r result that was inconsistent with the outcomes resulting in disciplinary cases involving o t her inmates. See Thompson v. Patteson , 985 F.2d 202, 207 (5th Cir. 199 3). Lineberry’s pleadings reflect that his cellmate and other inmate s 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, Li n eb e rry’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