GINO CARLUCCI, AKA Gene David Odice v. Barbara Von Blanckensee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GINO CARLUCCI, AKA Gene David
Odice,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 19-15815
D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00051-RM
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2019**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Gino Carlucci appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the dismissal of a section
2241 petition de novo, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d 1042, 1047 (9th
* 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
NOV 21 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 19-15815
Cir. 2011), and we affirm.
Carlucci challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was
sanctioned with the disallowance of good conduct time after he was found to have
committed the prohibited acts of circumventing mail monitoring procedures and
accepting money without staff authorization. He contends that the disciplinary
hearing officer was not impartial and that there was insufficient evidence to
support the officer’s findings. The record does not reflect that Carlucci was denied
an impartial decision maker but, rather, that the disciplinary proceedings complied
with all procedural due process requirements. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S.
540, 555 (1994) (unfavorable or adverse rulings alone are insufficient to show bias
unless they reflect such extreme favoritism or antagonism that the exercise of fair
judgment is precluded); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974). The
record further shows that “some evidence” supported the hearing officer’s findings.
See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Moreover, contrary to
Carlucci’s contention, the district court did not err by denying his petition without
an evidentiary hearing because the record conclusively shows that Carlucci is not
entitled to relief under section 2241. See Anderson v. United States, 898 F.2d 751,
753 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --