Case ID: f-appx_574/html/0776-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Gary NIXON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.E. THOMAS, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 12-36052.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 13, 2014.
    
    Filed May 21, 2014.
    Bronson James, Bronson James LLC, Beaverton, OR, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Ronald K. Silver, Kelly A. Zusman, Assistant U.S., Office of the U.S. Attorney, Portland, OR, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Gary Nixon appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.

Nixon contends that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer (“DHO”) violated his due process rights by refusing to allow Lieutenant Payne to testify on the subject of prison policies regarding the opening of legal mail. The DHO excluded this testimony on the basis that he could independently research the prison’s policies. Nixon argues that witness testimony cannot be excluded on this ground. We disagree. Lack of necessity is a proper basis on which to exclude testimony, and the record reflects that Nixon’s proposed witness was unnecessary. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

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