FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 13 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WALTER HOWARD WHITE, No. 09-15840
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:07-cv-00749-WQH-
WMC
v.
DERRAL G. ADAMS, MEMORANDUM *
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William Q. Hayes, District Judge, Presiding
**
Submitted December 6, 2010
Before: GOODWIN, RYMER, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Walter Howard White appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c), and we affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
White contends that the prison disciplinary officer deprived him of his due
process right to call witnesses at his hearing. The record indicates that White did
not request witnesses at his hearing, and White has failed to offer sufficient
evidence to the contrary. In addition, White has failed to show actual prejudice.
See Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993) (“habeas petitioners may
obtain plenary review of their constitutional claims, but they are not entitled to
habeas relief based on trial error unless they can establish that it resulted in ‘actual
prejudice’”). Accordingly, the state court’s rejection of this contention was not
contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court
law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
White also contends that prison officials deprived him of his due process
right to administratively appeal the disciplinary officer’s decision. The state
court’s rejection of this contention was not contrary to, or an unreasonable
application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1);
see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-572 (1974) (identifying the
procedures required in prison disciplinary proceedings); Mann v. Adams, 855 F.2d
639, 640 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[t]here is no legitimate claim of entitlement to a
grievance procedure”); Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 860 (9th Cir. 2003)
2 09-15840
(“inmates lack a separate constitutional entitlement to a specific prison grievance
procedure”).
We construe appellant’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir. R.
22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
White’s request for the appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.
3 09-15840