Mays v. Doerer

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: June 27, 2025
• Docket: 24-5903
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 27 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOSEPH RANDOLPH MAYS, No. 24-5903 D.C. No. 2:23-cv-03427-SVW-PVC Petitioner - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM*

J. DOERER, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 18, 2025**

Before: CANBY, S.R. THOMAS, and SUNG, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Joseph Randoph Mays appeals pro se from the denial of his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, which challenged prison disciplinary

proceedings that resulted in the loss of good conduct time. We have jurisdiction

* 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). under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Lane v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293,

1295 (9th Cir. 2018), we affirm.

Mays contends that the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) denied him procedural

due process because neither the Unit Disciplinary Committee (“UDC”) Chairman

nor the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) were impartial decisionmakers, the

staff representative assigned to him for the DHO Hearing did not advise him of or

fulfill her responsibilities, and the BOP wrongly denied his request to review video

surveillance footage taken in the three weeks prior to the incident.

The record does not support Mays’ claims that the UDC Chairman and DHO

were biased. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994). Moreover,

Mays’s allegations relating to his staff representative fail to show violations of

either BOP regulations, see 28 C.F.R. § 541.8(d), or due process, see Wolff v.

McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-69 (1974).1 Finally, although the BOP denied

Mays’ request to review three weeks of video surveillance footage, it permitted his

staff representative to review thirteen hours of footage from the day of the incident.

On this record, we conclude that Mays’s constitutional due process rights were not

violated. See Melnik v. Dzurenda, 14 F.4th 981, 986 (9th Cir. 2021) (a prisoner’s

right to review evidence for a disciplinary hearing may be constrained by a

1 Insofar as Mays relies on BOP Program Statements, his allegations are not cognizable in a § 2241 petition. See Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227-28 (9th Cir. 2011).

2 24-5903 “legitimate penological reason”).

Contrary to Mays’s remaining arguments, the district court did not err by

denying Mays’s petition without an evidentiary hearing because “the record

conclusively shows that [Mays] was not entitled to habeas corpus.” Anderson v.

United States, 898 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir. 1990). The district judge also conducted

the proper de novo review of the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation

and was not required to provide an individualized analysis of each of Mays’s

objections. See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 433-34 (9th Cir. 2023).

Mays’s motion to file a late reply brief is granted. The reply brief has been

filed and considered.

Any remaining motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

3 24-5903