Brian Brown v. Richard Ives

Ninth Circuit

Brian Brown v. Richard Ives

693 F. App'x 547

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJuly 3, 2017

Docket15-56885, 16-55131

StatusUnpublished

This text of 693 F. App'x 547 (Brian Brown v. Richard Ives) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Brian Brown v. Richard Ives, 693 F. App'x 547 (9th Cir. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

In these appeals, Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions challenging two prison disciplinary hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm in both cases.

In Appeal No. 15-56885, Brown challenges the findings of the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) that he committed (1) assault and threatening bodily harm, and (2) assault. In Appeal No. 16-55131, Brown again challenges the first finding. The record reflects that both of Brown’s disciplinary hearings comported with due process and “some evidence” supports the DHO’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). We reject Brown’s challenges to the district court’s handling of his petitions.

Brown’s motions to file the untimely and oversized reply brief are granted. The *548 Clerk shall file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 39 in Appeal No. 15-56885, and at Docket Entry No. 38 in Appeal No. 16-55131.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM **

In these appeals, Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions challenging two prison disciplinary hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm in both cases.

In Appeal No. 15-56885, Brown challenges the findings of the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) that he committed (1) assault and threatening bodily harm, and (2) assault. In Appeal No. 16-55131, Brown again challenges the first finding. The record reflects that both of Brown’s disciplinary hearings comported with due process and “some evidence” supports the DHO’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). We reject Brown’s challenges to the district court’s handling of his petitions.

Brown’s motions to file the untimely and oversized reply brief are granted. The *548 Clerk shall file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 39 in Appeal No. 15-56885, and at Docket Entry No. 38 in Appeal No. 16-55131.

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

693 F. App'x 547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/brian-brown-v-richard-ives-ca9-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack