Celafoi Doly v. Paul Copenhaver

Ninth Circuit

Celafoi Doly v. Paul Copenhaver

624 F. App'x 548

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 14, 2015

Docket15-15779

StatusUnpublished

This text of 624 F. App'x 548 (Celafoi Doly v. Paul Copenhaver) 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

Celafoi Doly v. Paul Copenhaver, 624 F. App'x 548 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Celafoi Doly appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary hearing. 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.

Doly contends that the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether two inmate affidavits, presented for the first time in the district court, established that he did not commit the charged offense. Even considering these affidavits, the record reflects that Dotys disciplinary hearing comported with due process and “some evidence” supports the disciplinary officer’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). Because the record conclusively shows that Doly was not entitled to relief under section 2241, no evidentiary hearing was required. See Anderson v. United States, 898 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

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

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Celafoi Doly appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary hearing. 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.

Doly contends that the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether two inmate affidavits, presented for the first time in the district court, established that he did not commit the charged offense. Even considering these affidavits, the record reflects that Dotys disciplinary hearing comported with due process and “some evidence” supports the disciplinary officer’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). Because the record conclusively shows that Doly was not entitled to relief under section 2241, no evidentiary hearing was required. See Anderson v. United States, 898 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir.1990).

AFFIRMED.

**

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

624 F. App'x 548, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/celafoi-doly-v-paul-copenhaver-ca9-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack