Anthony Patterson v. R. Gutierrez
Opinion
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Anthony Patterson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the loss of good conduct time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review de novo a district court’s denial of a section 2241 habeas corpus petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Patterson contends that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer relied on insufficient evidence to find he assaulted his cellmate. Contrary to Patterson’s contention, the sanctions imposed are supported by “some evidence.” See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Moreover, the record shows that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the procedural due process requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). The district court received and reviewed all materials in the record even though the materials are under seal. The district court, therefore, properly denied Patterson’s habeas petition.