Fleming

MEMORANDUM **

Jon Royal Fleming, a Washington state prisoner, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition, which alleged that his constitutional right to due process was violated when state prison officials denied him good-time credits as a result of prison disciplinary action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 . We review the denial of the petition de novo, see Serrato v. Clark, 486 F.3d 560, 565 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm the district court.

Fleming argues that because he was not competent at the time of his disciplinary hearings from 1996-2001, the hearings violated due process. The Washington Court of Appeals ruled, however, that Fleming never established he was incompetent during that time. That decision is not “ ‘contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law’ [n]or ‘was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts.’ ” Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1232 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d)).

*448 Fleming also argues that he was entitled to a staff advisor at his disciplinary hearings. In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 589 , 570, 94 S.Ct. 2963…