Porter
Porter v. Adams
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Robert W. Porter, Jr. appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we affirm.
Porter contends that prison disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in a loss of time credits, violated his due process rights because the hearing officer: (1) denied his request to call witnesses at the hearing; and (2) did not provide an explanation for doing so. This contention lacks merit. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566-67 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); see also Ponte v. Real, 471 U.S. 491, 497 , 105 S.Ct. 2192 , 85 L.Ed.2d 553 (1985).
Porter also contends that the disciplinary proceedings violated his due process rights because the hearing officer imper-missibly based the decision on his race. We conclude that “some evidence” supports the hearing officer’s decision, and that Porter has not alleged any facts that establish the hearing officer based the decision on racial bias. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); see also Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1271 (9th Cir.1989).