FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MAR 26 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
VICTOR CHARLES FOURSTAR, Jr., No. 16-16290
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:14-cv-01456-SKO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
PAUL COPENHAVER,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted March 15, 2019
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER, WATFORD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Victor Fourstar, Jr. appeals the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We
affirm the district court.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
We review de novo the district court’s decision denying Fourstar’s petition
for habeas corpus filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Wilson v. Belleque, 554 F.3d
816, 828 (9th Cir. 2009). Fourstar argues his right to due process was violated
during a prison disciplinary hearing because he was not permitted to present a
witness. Procedural due process requires that an inmate have an opportunity to
present witnesses at a disciplinary hearing. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539,
566–67 (1974). However, a disciplinary hearing officer may exclude a witness’s
testimony if that testimony is irrelevant. See id. Here, the requested witness’s
testimony concerned a subsequent alleged assault and was not relevant to the issue
before the disciplinary hearing officer, a fight that occurred earlier that day.
During the habeas proceedings, Fourstar submitted an unsworn “affidavit” stating
that the witness saw the first attack, but he does not claim that the disciplinary
hearing officer was aware of this. We hold that Fourstar’s right to procedural due
process was not violated.
Fourstar argues the district court abused its discretion by denying him the
right to an evidentiary hearing. The district court did not abuse its discretion by
declining to grant an evidentiary hearing because the record “conclusively shows
that petitioner is not entitled to habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Anderson
v. United States, 898 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir. 1990).
2
AFFIRMED.1
1
We GRANT the motion to withdraw the related motion to consolidate
appeals (Dkt. Entry No. 78) and DENY Fourstar’s motion to consolidate (Dkt.
Entry No. 77) as moot.
3