Richard Lauranzano v. George Ingle, Warden Attorney General of the State of California

89 F.3d 845 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Richard LAURANZANO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George INGLE, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees. No. 95-17120. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted April 22, 1996. * Decided April 29, 1996. Before: HALL, THOMPSON, and RYMER, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 California state prisoner Richard Lauranzano appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. Lauranzano is serving his sentence of 30 years to life imprisonment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and review de novo. Thomas v. Brewer, 923 F.2d 1361, 1364 (9th Cir.1991). We affirm. 3 In his section 2254 petition, Lauranzano alleged that his disciplinary charge for not following the California Department of Corrections' regulations governing inmate marriage was invalid because the regulations were ambiguous. He further asserted that the disciplinary…