Case ID: f-appx_390/html/0713-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Mario Rene RUBIO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. C.M. HARRISON, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-55467.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 19, 2010
    
    Filed Aug. 2, 2010.
    Mario Rene Rubio, San Luis Obispo, CA, pro se.
    Jacqueline Mai Lopez, Attorney General, Heather L.- Bushman, Esquire, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Kathleen R. Frey, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before:. B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, 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).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Mario Rene Rubio appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment. denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we reverse and remand.

Rubio contends that the prison disciplinary decision, finding him guilty of indecent exposure with a prior court conviction under California Penal Code sections 314 or 288, was not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. We remand for the district court to determine whether any of Rubio’s prior court convictions qualify as convictions under California Penal Code sections 314 or 288, and if so, whether some evidence supports the hearing officer’s finding. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

Judge REINHARDT dissents. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.-
     
      
      . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2003 prison disciplinary decision assessing 150 days loss of good time work credits and 90 days loss of privileges violated due process.