From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sanchez v. Adler

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 6, 2009
334 F. App'x 96 (9th Cir. 2009)

Opinion

No. 09-15430.

Submitted September 14, 2009.

The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).

Filed October 6, 2009.

Jose Octavio Lopez Sanchez, Taft, CA, pro se.

Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel, U.S. Department of Justice, Stockton, CA, Mark J. McKeon, Esquire, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, Dale Patrick, Esquire, Taft, CA, Andje Morovich Medina, Esquire, Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, William M. Wunderlich, Magistrate Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00800-WMW.

Before: SILVERMAN, RAWLINSON, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.



MEMORANDUM

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


Federal prisoner Jose Octavio Lopez Sanchez appeals pro se from a magistrate judge's dismissal 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.

Sanchez contends that his due process rights were violated by a Disciplinary Hearing Officer's determination that_ he possessed a prohibited weapon and a prohibited drug or narcotic. The record reflects that procedural safeguards were met and that "some evidence" demonstrates that Sanchez possessed the prohibited contraband. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).

AFFIRMED.


Summaries of

Sanchez v. Adler

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 6, 2009
334 F. App'x 96 (9th Cir. 2009)
Case details for

Sanchez v. Adler

Case Details

Full title:Jose Octavio Lopez SANCHEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Neil H. ADLER…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 6, 2009

Citations

334 F. App'x 96 (9th Cir. 2009)