FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 31 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ANTHONY PATTERSON, No. 15-55998
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:13-cv-04842-MWF
v.
MEMORANDUM*
R. PHILLIP GUTIERREZ,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 25, 2016**
Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Anthony Patterson appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a disciplinary
proceeding that resulted in the loss of good conduct time credits. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
a section 2241 habeas corpus petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805
(9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Patterson contends that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer relied on
insufficient evidence to find he assaulted his cellmate. Contrary to Patterson’s
contention, the sanctions imposed are supported by “some evidence.” See
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Moreover, the record shows that
the disciplinary proceedings complied with the procedural due process
requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72 (1974). The
district court received and reviewed all materials in the record even though the
materials are under seal. The district court, therefore, properly denied Patterson’s
habeas petition.
Patterson’s request for counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.
2 15-55998