T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T AA RON H ALL, P e titio n e r- A p p e lla n t, v. L I N D A S A N D E R S , W a r de n, R es po nd ent- A pp el l ee . N o. 12- 56379 D . C . N o . 2 : 1 1 -cv -0 6 3 5 7 -C JC ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia C orm a c J . C a rne y , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d S e pt e m be r24, 2013 ** B efo re: R A W L IN S O N , N . R . S M IT H , an dC H R IS T E N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. F ed er al p riso n erA ar o n H all ap p ea ls p ro se fr o m th e d istrict co u rt’s j udgm e ntde ny i ng hi s 28 U . S . C . § 2241 habe a s pe t i t i on. W e ha ve j ur i s di c t i on u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v i e w d e n o v o ad i s tr i c tc o u rt ’ s d e n i a l o f a2 8 U . S. C. § 2 2 4 1 h ab e a s c o rp u s p e titio n , s e e Mor a-Me r azv . T hom as , 6 0 1 F .3 d9 3 3 , 9 3 9 ( 9 th



# FI LED OC T 02 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 56379 2 Ci r . 2 0 1 0 ) , a n dw e a f

f i rm. H al l ar gu es thathi s r i gh tt o d ue proces s w as vi ol at ed by a D i sc i pl i nary H e a r i ng O f

f i c e r ’ s ( “ D H O ” ) de t e rm i na t i on tha the c om m i tt e d the pr ohi bi t e d a c tof “p o s s e s s io n , m a n u f

a c tu r e , o rin tr o du c tio n o f ah a z a r d o u s to o l.” T h e r e c o r dr e f le c ts thatthe prop erconst i tut i on alsa fe gu ar ds w er e m etand that“ som e e vi dence” s up p o rts th e D H O ’s f

in d in g s . Se e Su

p e r in te n de n t v . Hill , 472 U . S . 445, 455 ( 1985) (r equi re m ent s of due process ar e s at i sf i ed i f “ som e e vi dence” s up po rt s di sc i pl i nary d e c is io n ) ; W

o lff v . McD o n n e ll , 418 U . S . 539, 563- 70 ( 1974) ( s e tt i ng f orth due p r o c e s s r e q u ir e m e n ts in p r is o n d is c ip lin a ryp r o c e e d in g s th a t im p lic a te alib e rty in te r e s t) . H a ll s p e c if

ic a llyc o n te n d s th a t p r is o n o f f ic ia ls f a ile dtim e lyto a d v is e h im of hi s r i gh tt o rem ai n si l entdu ri ng the pri son i nv es t i gat i on and sou gh tt o coerce a c onf e s s i on. E ve n a s s um i ng s om e e rr ori n the D H O ’ s us e of H a l l ’ s a dm i s s i on, the D H O ’ s de t e rm i na t i on tha the pos s e s s e d the i t e m s w a s s uf f i c i e nt l ys upport e d bythe ev id en ce . F u rth er m o re , co n trary to H all’ s c o n ten ti o n , O ff icerC o lem an ’s in v o lv e m e n t in th e in v e s tig a tio n d idn o t v io la te p r is o n ru le s . See 2 8 C. F. R. § § 5 4 1 .1 4 - .1 6 ( 2 0 1 0 ) . F i nal l y, H al l ’ s c on t ent i on thathe soug htthe t es t i m on y of O ff i ce r P erki ns at hi s di s c i pl i na ryhe a r i ng i s nots upport e d bythe r e c or d. H a ll’s r e m a in in g c o n te n tio n s a r e w ith o u t m e r it. AF F I RME D.