SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, Jr. v. Richard Ives

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL ROBERT QUEEN, Jr.,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
RICHARD IVES,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 18-35483
D.C. No. 3:15-cv-00916-AA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Ann L. Aiken, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 11, 2019**
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas,
533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.
* 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
JUN 14 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 18-35483
Queen 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 possession of a hazardous tool and possession of
stolen property. Queen claims that his due process rights were violated because he
did not receive adequate advance written notice and because he was denied the
ability to call witnesses and have staff representation. The record shows that the
disciplinary proceedings comported with the minimal procedural due process
requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72 (1974).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --