Schulze v. Schultz
This text of 320 F. App'x 626 (Schulze v. Schultz) 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.
Opinion
MEMORANDUM
Federal prisoner Michael F. Schulze appeals pro se from the district court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253, and we affirm.
Schulze contends that the district court erred by determining that “some evidence” supports the prison disciplinary hearing officer’s determination that he possessed morphine. We conclude that the district court did not err. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).
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
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
320 F. App'x 626, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/schulze-v-schultz-ca9-2009.