Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03251/USCOURTS-ca8-09-03251-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of Janie S. Mayeron, United

States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 09-3251

___________

Victor Villegas, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Duke Terrell, Warden, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: May 14, 2010

Filed: May 19, 2010

___________

Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Victor Villegas appeals the district court’s1

 dismissal of his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 petition with prejudice. In his petition, Villegas alleged that he had

been improperly denied 40 days of good time credit when a Disciplinary Hearing

Officer (DHO) relied on insufficient evidence to determine that he had committed a

disciplinary violation. After careful de novo review, see Hill v. Morrison, 349 F.3d

1089, 1091 (8th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the district court did not err in its

Appellate Case: 09-3251 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/19/2010 Entry ID: 3666046
-2-

dismissal since Villegas’s petition showed that he had received a full hearing before

the DHO, the DHO had made written findings sufficient to meet procedural due

process requirements, and there was some evidence in the record supporting the

DHO’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1985) (some

evidence must support decision by prison disciplinary board to revoke good time

credits; relevant question is whether there is any evidence in record that could support

conclusion reached by disciplinary board); Dible v. Scholl, 506 F.3d 1106, 1110 (8th

Cir. 2007) (in prisoner disciplinary proceeding, prisoner must receive advance written

notice of charges, opportunity to call witnesses and present defense, and written

statement of evidence relied upon by fact finder and reasons for disciplinary action);

cf. Mason v. Sargent, 898 F.2d 679, 679-80 (8th Cir. 1990) (“some evidence” standard

met where contraband was found in locker and inmate argued that another inmate had

admitted placing it there).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 09-3251 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/19/2010 Entry ID: 3666046