Opinion
No. 13-15559
11-25-2014
JOHN E. BARRINGTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL BABCOCK, Warden, Federal Correctional Institute; BUREAU OF PRISONS, Respondents - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-00379-JKS MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California
James K. Singleton, District Judge, Presiding
Before: LEAVY, FISHER, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Federal prisoner John E. Barrington appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's denial of a section 2241 habeas petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Barrington contends that his disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in the loss of 27 days of good conduct time, violated his due process rights because an investigating officer participated in his hearing and thereby deprived Barrington of an impartial decisionmaker. Even if this claim has been properly exhausted, it is without merit. The record reflects that Barrington's disciplinary hearing comported with due process, and that "some evidence" supports the disciplinary officer's findings. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings); Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if "some evidence" supports disciplinary decision).
Barrington's motion for leave to file a supplemental brief, filed January 10, 2014, is granted. The Clerk shall file the supplemental brief received on December 27, 2013.
AFFIRMED.