22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4b2,MEMORANDUM Warden Robert Trimble appeals the district court’s grant of Noel Scott’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm. “[Rjevocation of good time does not comport with the minimum requirements of procedural due process unless the findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the record.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although the “some evidence” standard is not demanding, “there must be some indicia of reliability of the information that forms the basis for prison disciplinary actions.” Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir.1987). Here, no reliable evidence supports the prison’s finding that Scott conspired to introduce contraband into the prison. Accordingly, the resulting revocation of 30 days of Scott’s worktime credits violated due process, and the district court properly held that Scott was entitled to habeas relief. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T4df,

MEMORANDUM

Warden Robert Trimble appeals the district court’s grant of Noel Scott’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 . We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and affirm.

“[Rjevocation of good time does not comport with the minimum requirements of procedural due process unless the findings of the prison disciplinary board are supported by some evidence in the record.” Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Although the “some evidence” standard is not demanding, “there must be some indicia of reliability of the information that forms the basis for prison disciplinary actions.” Cato v. Rushen, 824 F.2d 703, 705 (9th Cir.1987). Here, no reliable evidence supports the prison’s finding that Scott conspired to introduce contraband into the prison. Accordingly, the resulting revocation of 30 days of Scott’s worktime credits violated due process, and the district court properly held that Scott was entitled to habeas relief.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.