Woods v. Carey

Ninth Circuit

Woods v. Carey

372 F. App'x 733

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Woods v. Carey. Read the opinion of the Court — 525 F.3d 886 →

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided March 26, 2010·No. 07-15589·Unpublished

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Earnest Cassell Woods, II appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Woods contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. This contention lacks merit because Woods has not demonstrated that the expungement of his disciplinary violation is likely to accelerate his release from prison. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir.2003).

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 **

California state prisoner Earnest Cassell Woods, II appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

Woods contends that the district court erred by dismissing his petition for lack of jurisdiction. This contention lacks merit because Woods has not demonstrated that the expungement of his disciplinary violation is likely to accelerate his release from prison. See Ramirez v. Galaza, 334 F.3d 850, 859 (9th Cir.2003).

AFFIRMED.

**

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

Woods v. Carey, 372 F. App'x 733 (9th Cir. 2010).

Pincite

372 F. App'x 733 (Woods v. Carey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related