FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION SEP 30 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
MARK ALAN LANE, No. 13-35676
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:12-cv-02346-PA
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MARION FEATHER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Owen M. Panner, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted September 23, 2014**
Before: W. FLETCHER, RAWLINSON, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Mark Alan Lane appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging the loss of
good conduct time following a prison disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal of a section 2241
*
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).
petition, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and
we affirm.
Lane contends that the district court erred by dismissing the instant petition
on the basis of Lane’s previous section 2241 petition. Contrary to Lane’s
contention, the district court did not err by applying Rule 4 of the Rules Governing
Section 2254 Cases to the instant petition. See Rule 1(b), Rules Governing Section
2254 Cases, 28 U.S.C. foll. § 2254. Moreover, the district court properly
dismissed the instant petition because Lane’s previous section 2241 petition raised
the same claims and was denied on the merits by the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Georgia. The abuse of the writ doctrine generally
“forbids the reconsideration of claims that were or could have been raised in a prior
habeas petition.” See Alaimalo, 645 F.3d at 1049 (internal quotations omitted).
Lane has not shown cause for bringing a successive petition, or that a fundamental
miscarriage of justice will result from the failure to entertain his claim. See
McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U.S. 467, 494-95 (1991).
AFFIRMED.
2 13-35676