Richard C. Buchanan v. Charles D. Marshall, Warden

Good Law
104 F.3d 365·1996 WL 740872·1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 37741
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 20, 199696-15694California614 words

Opinion

Opinion

104 F.3d 365 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel.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 C. BUCHANAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Charles D. MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee. No. 96-15694. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Submitted Dec. 16, 1996. * Decided Dec. 20, 1996. Before: SNEED, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM ** 2 California state prisoner Richard C. Buchanan appeals pro se the district court's dismissal of his habeas corpus petition. Buchanan contends that: 1) the district court erred by determining that Buchanan had no liberty interest in the restoration of sentence credits previously forfeited due to misbehavior; 2) prison officials were required to restore all of Buchanan's previously forfeited sentence credits; and 3) his double jeopardy rights were violated when prison officials twice refused to restore the forfeited sentence credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 , 2253. We review de novo, Duckett v. Godinez, 67 F.3d 734,…

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.