ground for distinguishing the earlier precedent, and, therefore, failed to provide clearly established authority in the area of equal protection. ¶20 Furthermore, prior to Olech, the federal circuit courts had divided on whether an individual could assert an Equal Protection Clause violation if he or she were not a member of a particular class or group. The Sixth Circuit, in Futernick v. Sumpter Township (6th Cir. 1996), 78 F.3d 1051, 1060, had rejected the “class of one” theory, holding that a plaintiffs membership in a class was essential to a denial of equal protection. Three years later, in Bass v. Robinson (6th Cir. 1999), 167 F.3d 1041, the Sixth Circuit continued to require a claimant to allege class membership to sustain an equal protection claim. Bass, 167 F.3d at 1050 (<HOLDING>). Additionally, the Seventh Circuit, just prior
holding that because plaintiff failed to allege invidious discrimination based upon his membership in a protected class his equal protection claim failed at its inception holding that the appellant waived his claim on appeal because he failed to address that claim in either his application for a coa or his brief on appeal holding that a plaintiff failed to state a claim for a breach of a joint venture agreement where it failed to allege  responsibility for losses holding that plaintiff had no jurisdiction in federal court because she failed to allege a state law claim but declining to discuss pleading requirement to set forth charge of discrimination holding discrimination in redemption periods violated the equal protection clause where class membership did not correlate with purported class distinctions drawn by legislature