Case ID: f-appx_234/html/0652-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Barry S. JAMESON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard A. RIMMER, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 05-56463.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 5, 2007.
    
    Filed June 15, 2007.
    Barry S. Jameson, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
    Nicholas N. Paul, Esq., AGCA—Office of the California Attorney General, Col-lette C. Cavalier, Esq., Office of the Deputy Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: LEAVY, RYMER, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Barry S. Jameson, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm the district court.

We reject Jameson’s claims I to V alleging various due process violations relating to his prison disciplinary hearing. On review of the record, we hold that the hearing process comported with the due process required under Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

We further decline to consider claim VI because this claim was abandoned before the district court. See Hollinger v. Titan Capital Corp., 914 F.2d 1564, 1578 (9th Cir.1990) (“Finally, we affirm the district court’s order granting summary judgment to Titan on appellants’ claim ... because appellants abandoned that claim before the district court.”).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.