Bartlett
Williams v. Bartlett
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Randall R. Williams (“Williams”) appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Williams’s petition, brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)(1), asserts that the Board of Parole and Post-Prison Supervision’s (“Board’s”) decision deferring his parole date violated his due process rights. 1 We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
Williams contends that the state court’s denial of his habeas petition involved an unreasonable application of Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). In Hill , the Supreme Court held that a parole board’s decision to revoke a prisoner’s “good time credits” did not violate the prisoner’s due process rights because “there was some evidence from which the conclusion of the administrative tribunal could be deduced,” which supported the parole board’s decision. Id. at 455 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 . Williams asserts that Dr. Shellman’s psychological evaluation did not include a diagnosis that *503 Williams suffered from severe emotional disturbance, and thus the Board’s findings were not supported by the requisite evidence in the record.