MacMillan

MacMillan v. Pontesso

Good Law
73 F. App'x 213
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJuly 29, 2003No. 02-16749; D.C. No. CV-00-02419-EHCCalifornia569 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner David Thomas MacMillan appeals the district court’s order dismissing with prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for writ of habeas corpus. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253, and we affirm.

MacMillan was disciplined by a loss of good time credits for committing a prohibited act in prison in violation of Code 201, “Fighting With Another Person.” He contends that his punishment violated the Due Process Clause because his involvement in the fight was limited to self defense and because the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) was biased.

We are not persuaded. MacMillan called two witnesses on his behalf at the *215 hearing and made a statement in his defense. On the evidence presented, the DHO could reasonably have concluded that MacMillan had the opportunity to avoid or diffuse the impending confrontation with his adversary, or to walk away before fisticuffs erupted, and that by instead returning the blow MacMillan was engaged in “fighting.”

Nor do we accept MacMillan’s assertion that the DHO was biased. The single factual inaccuracy in the DHO’s report identified by the Regional Director on review was not central to the DHO’s…

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.