Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published *

and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-30456

Summary Calendar

RODNEY ARCENEAUX,

Petitioner - Appellant

v.

J P YOUNG,

Respondent - Appellee

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 2:08-CV-1451

Before GARZA, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Rodney Arceneaux, federal prisoner # 79182-079, appeals the district

court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition challenging eight different

prison disciplinary proceedings.

Arceneaux challenges the district court’s determination that his due

process rights were not violated during the disciplinary proceedings. He

contends that his refusal to join the general prison population did not violate

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 16, 2010

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

Case: 09-30456 Document: 00511053423 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/16/2010
No. 09-30456

2

prison regulations and that prison officials wrongly did not interview witnesses

concerning his reasons for refusing to join the general prison population. He

further argues that his due process rights were violated because he was not told

his rights concerning the disciplinary proceedings and because he was not given

the opportunity to interview the witnesses or request a staff representative.

Any failure by prison officials to comply with their own regulations does

not state a constitutional claim cognizable on habeas review. Jackson v. Cain,

864 F.2d 1235, 1251–52 (5th Cir. 1989). Nevertheless, while Arceneaux “has no

federal right to insist that a state follow its own procedural rules, he does have

a right to procedures which meet constitutional due process standards.” Id. at

1252. “Where a prison disciplinary hearing may result in the loss of good time

credits,” due process requires: “(1) advance written notice of the disciplinary

charges; (2) an opportunity, when consistent with institutional safety and

correctional goals, to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in [the

inmate’s] defense; and (3) a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence

relied on and the reasons for the disciplinary action.” Superintendent v. Hill,

472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). “[T]he requirements of due process are satisfied if

some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board to revoke

good time credits.” Id. at 455.

Arceneaux was given written notice of his rights concerning the

disciplinary proceedings and an adequate opportunity to interview witnesses or

request a staff representative, and nothing in the record indicates that

Arceneaux’s due process rights were otherwise violated in the disciplinary

proceedings. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564–66 (1974). Furthermore,

the record clearly demonstrates “some” evidence to support the revocation of

Case: 09-30456 Document: 00511053423 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/16/2010
No. 09-30456

3

Arceneaux’s good time credits.

For the foregoing reasons, the district court’s opinion is AFFIRMED.

Case: 09-30456 Document: 00511053423 Page: 3 Date Filed: 03/16/2010