DIONTE HOUFF, AKA Bird, AKA Birdman, AKA Tay v. Federal Bureau of Prisons; Felipe Martinez

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DIONTE HOUFF, AKA Bird, AKA
Birdman, AKA Tay,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS;
FELIPE MARTINEZ,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 21-55037
D.C. No. 5:20-cv-00645-SB-AFM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 14, 2021**
Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Dionte Houff appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, which challenged a
prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was sanctioned with the loss of good
* 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 21 2021
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 3 --

2 21-55037
conduct time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo, see Lane v. Salazar, 911 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2018), and we affirm.
Houff first contends that the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) was not
impartial because, inter alia, he relied on Houff’s silence when finding that Houff
committed the prohibited act of possession of a weapon. Because other
incriminating evidence was presented, the DHO properly drew an adverse
inference from Houff’s silence. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 316-20
(1976). Houff’s other allegations of impartiality are unsupported by the record,
which shows that he was not denied an impartial decision maker. See Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570-71 (1974).
Houff also contends that, in light of an apparent typographical error in the
record of his prison disciplinary proceedings, there was insufficient evidence to
show he committed a violation. Despite the error, due process was satisfied
because there was “some evidence” supporting the decision. See Superintendent v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Similarly, the fact that the investigator and the
DHO gave slightly differing estimates of the length of Houff’s weapon does not
demonstrate that the disciplinary decision was “not supported by any evidence.”
Id.
We do not address Houff’s contentions that the Bureau of Prisons failed to
follow its administrative procedures and regulations because they are raised for the

-- 2 of 3 --

3 21-55037
first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --