Opinion
No. 15-17315
08-23-2016
BRIAN KEITH HERRON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. T. SHARTLE, Respondent-Appellee.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00358-JGZ MEMORANDUM Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding Before: O'SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Federal prisoner Brian Keith Herron appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the loss of good conduct time credits and a monetary restitution sanction in the amount of $2,138.20. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court's denial of a section 2241 habeas corpus petition, see Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.
Herron contends that, with the exception of $158.20, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer relied on insufficient evidence to determine the amount Herron should pay for damage to prison property. Herron argues that the process for calculating the restitution amount was arbitrary and unregulated, and he urges this court to reassess the credibility of the evidence presented at the hearing which he contends was tainted because prison staff harbored animosity towards him. The record shows that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the procedural due process requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72 (1974). Further, contrary to Herron's contention, the sanctions imposed are supported by "some evidence." See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
AFFIRMED.