Clarence Schreane v. Steven Lake

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 17, 2019
• Docket: 19-15553
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 17 2019 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLARENCE DAVID SCHREANE, No. 19-15553

Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01217-AWI-EPG

v. MEMORANDUM* STEVEN LAKE,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 11, 2019**

Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Clarence David Schreane appeals pro se from the district

court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Schreane challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was

* 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). sanctioned with the disallowance of good conduct time after he was found to have

committed the prohibited act of disruptive conduct most like making sexual

proposals or threats to another. He contends that he did not receive procedural due

process, that there was insufficient evidence to support the disciplinary hearing

officer’s finding, and that the sanction violates his rights under the First

Amendment. Reviewing de novo, see Lane v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th

Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 60 (2019), we conclude that these claims fail.

The record reflects that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the procedural

due process requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72

(1974), and that “some evidence” supported the hearing officer’s findings, see

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). We reject Schreane’s

argument that the sanction violates his rights under the First Amendment. See

Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 229-30 (2001) (setting forth factors for reviewing

prisoners’ First Amendment claims); see also Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054,

1059-60 (9th Cir. 1999) (reducing sexual harassment of prison employees is a

legitimate government interest).

AFFIRMED.

2 19-15553