Funtanilla

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Gregorio C. Funtanilla, Jr. appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556-58 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam); White v. Lambert, 370 F.3d 1002, 1010 (9th Cir.2004); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1095-98 (9th Cir.1986). We review de novo a district court’s decision to deny a § 2254 petition, see McQuillion v. Duncan, 306 F.3d 895, 899 (9th Cir.2002), and we affirm.

Funtanilla contends that a prison disciplinary decision violated his due process rights. We conclude that some evidence supported the disciplinary decision that Funtanilla hired a private investigator to conduct surveillance on an off-duty staff member. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 , 105 S.Ct. 2768 , 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). We further conclude that the confidential information relied upon by the hearing official was sufficiently reliable because physical evidence corroborated the information. See Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 186-87 (9th Cir.1987)…