Case ID: f-appx_668/html/0312-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Brian Keith HERRON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J. T. SHARTLE, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 15-17315
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted August 16, 2016 
    
    Filed August 23, 2016
    Brian Keith Herron, Pine Knot, KY, Pro Se.
    Denise Ann Faulk, U.S. Attorney, Tucson, AZ.
    Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, 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 Brian Keith Herron appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the loss of good conduct time credits and a monetary restitution sanction in the amount of $2,138.20. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of a section 2241 habeas corpus petition, see Bowen v. Hood, 202 F.3d 1211, 1218 (9th Cir. 2000), and we affirm.

Herron contends that, with the exception of $158.20, the Disciplinary Hearing Officer relied on insufficient evidence to determine the amount Herron should pay for damage to prison property. Herron argues that the process for calculating the restitution amount was arbitrary and unregulated, and he urges this court to reassess the credibility of the evidence presented at the hearing which he contends was tainted because prison staff harbored animosity towards him. The record shows that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the procedural due process requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974). Further, contrary to Herron’s contention, the sanctions imposed are supported by “some evidence.” See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.