Thomas James Cleary v. Mark A. Henry, Warden

43 F.3d 1478 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Thomas James CLEARY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Mark A. HENRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 94-55504. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 6, 1994. * Decided Dec. 14, 1994. Before: D.W. NELSON, HALL, and TROTT, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 Thomas James Cleary, a federal prisoner, appeals pro se the district court's order which conditionally granted a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2241 . Cleary, who challenges the constitutionality of his parole revocation hearing, contends that the district court erred by misconstruing his delay claim, by failing to conduct an evidentiary hearing, and by failing to reach his claim regarding the production of witnesses. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2253 and review de novo. Camacho v. White, 918 F.2d 74, 77 (9th Cir.1990). We affirm. 3 While on parole for a 1983 federal conviction, Cleary was arrested on state drug…