NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JUN 16 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
LORENZO FOSSELMAN, AKA Lorenzo No. 11-15344
Fosselman, Jr.,
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00328-LJO-GSA
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
M. S. EVANS, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 9, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Lorenzo Fosselman, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order
denying habeas relief from a 30-day disciplinary reduction of good time credits.
Fosselman was disciplined because he refused to respond to an interview demand from
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
prison officials who were investigating recent gang activity within the prison. Fosselman
argues that the reduction in good time credits violated his due process rights. We
conclude that the state court’s denial of relief was neither contrary to clearly established
Federal law nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d).
Fosselman contends that, because there was no prison regulation expressly
requiring inmates to participate in investigatory interviews, he was not given adequate
notice that his conduct was sanctionable. Prison regulations clearly state, however, that
“[i]nmates and parolees must promptly and courteously obey written and verbal orders.”
Cal. Code Regs. tit. 15, s. 3005(b). Fosselman failed to obey an order to appear for an
interview. Notice was adequate.
Fosselman also argues that the interview request was unnecessary because prison
officials had already completed their investigation of gang activity, and he had no
pertinent information to provide. The disciplinary decisions of prison officials “must be
supported by some evidence.” Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445,
447 (1985). Here, there was some evidence that Fosselman refused to obey an order to
appear for an interview, that gang activity was an ongoing concern, and that interviews
were necessary to ensure the safety of inmates and prison staff.
The district court’s denial of Fosselman’s habeas petition is AFFIRMED.
2