Lorenzo Fosselman v. M. Evans

Good Law
578 F. App'x 726
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 16, 201411-15344California285 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Lorenzo Fosselman, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying habeas relief from a 30-day disciplinary reduction of good time credits. Fosselman was disciplined because he refused to respond to an interview demand from prison officials who were investigating recent gang activity within the prison. Fosselman argues that the reduction in good time credits violated his due process rights. We conclude that the state court’s denial of relief was neither contrary to clearly established Federal law nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d).

Fosselman contends that, because there was no prison regulation expressly requiring inmates to participate in investigatory interviews, he was not given adequate notice that his conduct was sanctionable. Prison regulations clearly state, however, that “[i]nmates and parolees must promptly and courteously obey written and verbal orders.” CaLCode Regs. tit. 15, s. 3005(b). Fosselman failed to obey an order to appear for an interview. Notice was adequate.

Fosselman also argues that the interview request was unnecessary because prison officials had already completed their…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.