Case ID: f-appx_508/html/0605-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Tony B. ALEXANDER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Scott SCHLEDER, Southeast Regional DHO; et. al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 11-16791.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Feb. 11, 2013.
    
    Filed Feb. 13, 2013.
    Tony B. Alexander, Tucson, AZ, pro se.
    Bureau of Prisons Regional Counsel, Federal Bureau of Prisons, Stockton, CA, Jesse Gonzalez, USP, Litigation Coordinat, Atwater, CA, Mark J. McKeon, Esquire, Assistant U.S. Attorney, USF-Office of the U.S. Attorney, Fresno, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before:' FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, Alexander’s request for oral argument is denied.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Federal prisoner Tony B. Alexander appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a § 2241 petition de novo. See Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir.2008). The district court’s factual findings are reviewed for clear error. See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 826 (9th Cir.2003). We affirm.

Alexander contends that his due process rights were violated in the prison disciplinary proceedings finding him guilty of two instances of engaging in sexual acts. The record does not support his contention. The district court properly denied the petition because Alexander received all process that was due and some evidence supports the disciplinary findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

We decline to consider Alexander’s argument alleging a violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S.Ct. 1194, 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), because it was neither developed in the district court nor raised in his opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n. 2 (9th Cir.2009) (per curiam).

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