Eddie Mills v. Charles D. Marshall, Warden

9 F.3d 1552 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Eddie MILLS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 92-16325. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Nov. 1, 1993. * Decided Nov. 9, 1993. Before: SCHROEDER, D.W. NELSON and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Eddie Mills, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the prison disciplinary committee's finding that Mills assaulted another prisoner with a deadly weapon. Mills contends the district court erred by (1) dismissing his claim that his due process rights were violated when he was denied the use of a staff assistant, (2) determining that the disciplinary committee's finding of guilt was based upon reliable evidence, and (3) finding sufficient evidence that Mills assaulted another prisoner with a deadly weapon. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253…