Dionte Houff v. Bop

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 21 2021 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DIONTE HOUFF, AKA Bird, AKA No. 21-55037 Birdman, AKA Tay, D.C. No. 5:20-cv-00645-SB-AFM Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; MEMORANDUM* FELIPE MARTINEZ,

Respondents-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 14, 2021**

Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Dionte Houff appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, which challenged a

prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was sanctioned with the loss of good

* 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). conduct time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de

novo, see Lane v. Salazar, 911 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2018), and we affirm.

Houff first contends that the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) was not

impartial because, inter alia, he relied on Houff’s silence when finding that Houff

committed the prohibited act of possession of a weapon. Because other

incriminating evidence was presented, the DHO properly drew an adverse

inference from Houff’s silence. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 316-20

(1976). Houff’s other allegations of impartiality are unsupported by the record,

which shows that he was not denied an impartial decision maker. See Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570-71 (1974).

Houff also contends that, in light of an apparent typographical error in the

record of his prison disciplinary proceedings, there was insufficient evidence to

show he committed a violation. Despite the error, due process was satisfied

because there was “some evidence” supporting the decision. See Superintendent v.

Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Similarly, the fact that the investigator and the

DHO gave slightly differing estimates of the length of Houff’s weapon does not

demonstrate that the disciplinary decision was “not supported by any evidence.”

Id.

We do not address Houff’s contentions that the Bureau of Prisons failed to

follow its administrative procedures and regulations because they are raised for the

2 21-55037 first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

AFFIRMED.

3 21-55037