The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
15-17315•Brian Keith Herron v. J. T. Shartle
15-17315Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitAug 23, 2016
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN KEITH HERRON,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
J. T. SHARTLE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-17315
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
Submitted August 16, 2016**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
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
FILED
AUG 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
-- 1 of 2 --
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.
15-17315 2
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.