Brian L. Brown v. RICHARD IVES, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRIAN L. BROWN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
RICHARD IVES, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Nos. 15-56885
16-55131
D.C. Nos. 2:14-cv-02518-SVW
2:14-cv-02643-SVW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 26, 2017**
Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
In these appeals, Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgments denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions challenging two prison
disciplinary hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d
* 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).
FILED
JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-56885 & 16-55131
800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm in both cases.
In Appeal No. 15-56885, Brown challenges the findings of the disciplinary
hearing officer (“DHO”) that he committed (1) assault and threatening bodily
harm, and (2) assault. In Appeal No. 16-55131, Brown again challenges the first
finding. The record reflects that both of Brown’s disciplinary hearings comported
with due process and “some evidence” supports the DHO’s findings. See
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (requirements of due process are
satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison
disciplinary proceedings). We reject Brown’s challenges to the district court’s
handling of his petitions.
Brown’s motions to file the untimely and oversized reply brief are granted.
The Clerk shall file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 39 in Appeal No. 15-
56885, and at Docket Entry No. 38 in Appeal No. 16-55131.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --