Clarence David Schreane v. Steven Lake

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CLARENCE DAVID SCHREANE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STEVEN LAKE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 19-15553
D.C. No. 1:17-cv-01217-AWI-EPG
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 11, 2019**
Before: WALLACE, CANBY, and TASHIMA, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Clarence David Schreane appeals pro se from the district
court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
Schreane challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was
* 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
DEC 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-15553
sanctioned with the disallowance of good conduct time after he was found to have
committed the prohibited act of disruptive conduct most like making sexual
proposals or threats to another. He contends that he did not receive procedural due
process, that there was insufficient evidence to support the disciplinary hearing
officer’s finding, and that the sanction violates his rights under the First
Amendment. Reviewing de novo, see Lane v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th
Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 60 (2019), we conclude that these claims fail.
The record reflects that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the procedural
due process requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72
(1974), and that “some evidence” supported the hearing officer’s findings, see
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985). We reject Schreane’s
argument that the sanction violates his rights under the First Amendment. See
Shaw v. Murphy, 532 U.S. 223, 229-30 (2001) (setting forth factors for reviewing
prisoners’ First Amendment claims); see also Mauro v. Arpaio, 188 F.3d 1054,
1059-60 (9th Cir. 1999) (reducing sexual harassment of prison employees is a
legitimate government interest).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --