IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
__________________
No. 95-10961
Conference Calendar
__________________
MORRIS R. BROUSSARD,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
JAMES A. COLLINS, DIRECTOR, TEXAS DEPARTMENT
OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, INSTITUTIONAL DIVISION;
JOEL YOUNG; DANNY SCHAEFER; SHARON B. KIRL;
M.W. MOORE; W. DELAROSA,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 1:94-CV-71-C
- - - - - - - - - -
April 18, 1996
Before DUHÉ, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
This is an appeal from the grant of summary judgment for the
defendants in a civil rights action. Before reaching the issue
whether Broussard received due process in connection with his
disciplinary proceedings, the court must determine whether he
held a liberty interest protected under the Due Process Clause.
Sandin v. Conner, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2297-2300 (1995). State-
created liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process
*
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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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. 95-10961
-2-
Clause will be generally limited to freedom from restraint which
imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in
relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life. Id. at 2300.
In Luken v. Scott, 71 F.3d 192 (5th Cir. 1995), pet. for cert.
filed, (U.S. Jan. 16, 1996) (No. 95-8268), we concluded that the
loss of the opportunity to earn good time credits, which might
lead to earlier parole, is a speculative collateral consequence
which does not give rise to a constitutionally protected liberty
interest. Id. at 193. Broussard did not hold a protected
liberty interest under Sandin to complain of the
constitutionality of the procedural devices attendant to his
disciplinary hearings. See Sandin, 115 S. Ct. at 2297-2300.
AFFIRMED.