Sanchez v. Thomas

No. 99-20875
-1-
* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-20875
Summary Calendar
MAXIMILLIAN SANCHEZ;
ET AL,
Plaintiffs,
JUAN CARABALLO,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
TOMMY THOMAS, Sheriff,
Harris County,
Defendant-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Texas
USDC No. H-98-CV-2935
--------------------
April 27, 2000
Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Juan Caraballo appeals the district court’s grant of summary
judgment to defendant Thomas in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 suit. His
first argument is that the district court erred in granting
summary judgment on his equal protection claims. Because the
policy at issue did not create two or more classifications that
treated similarly situated people differently, the district court

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 99-20875
-2-
did not so err. See Stefanoff v. Hays County, 154 F.3d 523 (5th
Cir. 1998).
Caraballo next argues that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment to Thomas on Caraballo’s due process
claim. Because Caraballo had no protected liberty interest in
the opportunity to earn presentencing good time credit, the
district court did not so err. See Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192,
193 (5th Cir. 1995). We need not address Caraballo’s claims that
the district court erred in determining that Thomas was entitled
to qualified immunity and that the district court erred in
granting summary judgment on Caraballo’s Sixth Amendment claim.
The district court did not rule on the issue of qualified
immunity, and Caraballo has failed to properly brief his Sixth
Amendment issue. The judgment of the lower court is
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --