IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-10104
Summary Calendar
DIANE LYNN HOPPER, On behalf of herself and all other women
similarly situated; WANDA DIANE NASH SMITH, On behalf of herself
and all other women similarly situated; BILLA JOAN FRANKLIN, On
behalf of herself and all other women similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
versus
COMMISSIONERS COURT, of Dallas County, Texas; JIM BOWLES,
Sheriff, Sheriff of Dallas County; DALLAS COUNTY PRE-TRIAL
RELEASE SERVICES; TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, by and
through James Collins, Executive Director; DALLAS COUNTY
COMMUNITY SUPERVISORS & CORRECTIONS DEPARTMENT, by and through
Ron Goethals, Director; WAYNE SCOTT, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION; JAMES A. COLLINS,
DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL
DIVISION; JAIL STANDARDS COMMISSION; TEXAS BOARD OF CRIMINAL
JUSTICE, by and through, Carol Vance, Jerry Hodge, Joshua Allen,
Sr., Ellen J. Halbert, Allan Poulumsky, R.H. (Rufus) Duncan, The
Honorable Gilberto Jinojosa, Sr., John R. Ward, Thomas Dunning,
Board Members; TEXAS BOARD OF PARDONS & PAROLE DIVISION, by and
through Jack Kyle, Chairman; TDCJ, PARDON AND PAROLE DIVISION, by
and through Melinda Bozarth, Interim Director; TDCJ COMMUNITY
JUSTICE ASSISTANCE DIVISION, by and through Dimitria Pope,
Director; DALLAS COUNTY TEXAS,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:94-CV-54-X
- - - - - - - - - -
August 21, 1996
Before DAVIS, WIENER, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
*
Pursuant to Local Rule 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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 Local Rule
47.5.4.
No. 95-10104
- 2 -
The appellants appeal the orders of the district court
denying a preliminary injunction and class certification. They
argue that 1) the district court erred in denying the application
for a preliminary injunction as moot, 2) their standing to appeal
the denial of class certification should be determined as of the
date of filing of their motion for class certification, and 3)
their claims are “capable of repetition, yet evading review.”
For the reasons given by the district court, we AFFIRM the
district court’s denial of the application for a preliminary
injunction as moot. We do not address the arguments concerning
the denial of class certification, and we DISMISS the appeal of
that order for lack of jurisdiction. See Carson v. American
Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79, 84 (1981); Shanks v. City of Dallas,
Tex., 752 F.2d 1092, 1095 (5th Cir. 1985). The appellees’ motion
to dismiss the appeal is DENIED, and the appellants’ motion for
sanctions is also DENIED.