Graves

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s denial of Graves’s habeas petition. In his disciplinary hearing, Graves was denied the right to put forth his defense, which is plausible and, if proven true, would exculpate him. The hearing officer (“Lt. Adams”) denied Graves witnesses and documentary evidence that could have supported his theory that he was framed. Graves’s defense is all the more credible given the assertion that one officer may have lied regarding whether the search was random or based on an informant’s tip. I also would grant habeas relief on the ground that the prison’s practice of using the same adjudicator in two hearings arising out of the same incident violates due process.

Denial of Witnesses

Lt. Adams refused to permit Graves to question several witnesses, including Officers McCoy, Meadows, and Shambre, as well as Graves’s cellmate Collins. He also cut short Graves’s questioning of Lt. Valencia. The majority states that such testimony and evidence would have been irrelevant and that any error was harmless.

The evidence would have been relevant, however, to Graves’s claim that he was set up by another inmate who put the heroin in the fan and…

MEMORANDUM *

Fred Graves, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, in which he claimed his due process rights were violated when he was found guilty of distribution of a controlled substance in prison disciplinary proceedings. As the parties are familiar with the facts of this case, we do not separately recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.

I.

In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974), the Supreme Court explained that “[pjrison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply.” Id. at 556 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 . The Court stressed that “[pjrison officials must have the necessary discretion to keep the hearing within reasonable limits and to *672 refuse to call witnesses that may create a risk of reprisal or undermine authority, as well as to limit access to other inmates to collect statements or to compile other documentary evidence.” Id. at 566 , 94 S.Ct. 2963 . While an inmate has the right to present evidence in his defense, the…