N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
M IC HAEL AAR ON W ITKIN,

Pe t i tione r-Appe lla

nt,
v. ER IC AR N OLD, W arde n, R e sponde nt-Appe lle e . No. 16-17171 D.C . No. 2:14-c v-01709-GEB -KJN
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Garland E. B urre ll, Jr., Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d Oc tobe r 17, 2018 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , a nd KLEINFELD a

nd GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s. Pe titione r M i c ha e l Aa

ron W itkin is a

sta te prisone r who a

ppe a ls the de nia l of his pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus. W e AFFIRM
.
A se n ior he aring offic e r a t the fa c ility whe re W itkin is inc arc e ra te d found



# FIL ED DEC 17 2018 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.W itkin guilty of viola ting title 15, se c tion 3005(a

) of the C a lifornia

C o de of R e gula tions, ba se d on “ disruptivebe havior” in the prison libra ry . At his disc iplina ry he a ring, W itkin re q

ue ste d to pre s e nt thre e witne sse s : the libra rian a nd two inm ate s, Avila

and C oope r. The he aring offic e r grante d the re que s t to ha ve the libra rian pre se nt be c a

use she wa s the “ re p o rting e m ploy e e .” The libra

rian te stifie d that W itkin wa s disruptive

in tha t “ [h] e stood up a

nd sta rte d a sking que stions in a
ra ise d voic e c a

using a disturba n c e and disrupting othe

rs. He wa s loud a

nd
argum e ntative .” The offic e r de nie d the re q ue st to ha v e the two inm ate s te stify , be c a use the y ha d “ [n] o re le va

nt te stim ony .” The he aring offic e r e xpla i ne d in his de c ision tha

t W itkin “ m e ntione d he ha d othe r inm ate witne sse s to this c a se ; howe v e r, he did not ha

v e any inform ation on the s e witne sse s. As suc h, the se pote ntia l witne s se s we re de nie d .” The disc iplina ry de c ision re sulte d in, a

m ong othe r punishm e nts, re voc ation of 30 da y s of W itkin’ s “ good tim e c re dits.”
Subse q ue n t ly , W i tkin obtaine d a ffidavits with more inform at ion a bout the libra rian a nd the inc ide nt. Thre e inm ate witne sse s sa id tha t the y we re in the libra

ry at the tim e of the inc i de nt a nd tha t W itkin wa s not disruptive . The se late r-pre pa re d
a ffidav its, howe v e r, we re not pre se nte d at the disc iplina

ry he aring.

2W itkin pe titione d for a writ of ha

be a s c orpus in thesta

te c ourts. The Supe rior C ourt of C a l ifornia de nie d his pe t ition on the grounds tha

t te stim ony

from his witne sse s wa s not im

prope rly e xc lude d a

nd the re wa s “ som e e vide nc e ” to susta in the disc iplina

ry de c ision. TheC a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l a

nd the Supre m e C ourt of C a lifornia

issue d sum

m ary de nia l s.
W itkin the n file d a

pe tition for writ of ha

be a s c orpus in fe d e ra l distric t c ourt. The distric t c ourt de nie d W itkin’ s pe tition on the m e rits. W i tkin a

ppe a le d,
c la im ing tha

t (1) he wa s de nie d his dueproc e ss right to c a l l witne sse s , a nd (2) the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to support the prison disc iplina

ry de c ision.

1. Although the

que stion of whe t

he r W itkin e xha

uste d his dueproc e ss right to c a ll witne s se s c la im

is de bata ble , we de ny his c la im

on the m e rits. His sta

te c ourt c la i m

wa s unc le ar a

bout whe the r he wa s a sse rting a c la i m ba s e d on his due proc e s s right to c a ll witne sse s, or whe the r he wa s a sse rting a c la i m tha t the he aring offic e r lie d whe n he sa id W itkin ha d no inform ation a bout his witne sse s.
Whe the r or not his c la im

is e xha u ste d, howe v e r, it fa ils on them e rits. A ha be a s pe tition “m ay

be de nie d on the m e rits, notwithsta nding the fa ilure of the
3a

pplic ant to e xha

ust the re m e d ie s a

va ila b le in the c ourts of theState .” Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(b)(2); Jone s v. Da vis, 806 F.3d 538, 545-46 (9th C ir. 2015); C a sse tt v. Ste w art, 406 F.3d 614, 624 (9th C ir. 2005). W itkin did not de m onstra te a due proc e s s viola

tion be c a u se he did not show tha

t he gave the he a

ring offic e r any inform at ion a

bout his witne sse s’ re le va nc y . The he a

ring offic e r ha d to de te rm ine whe the r to a llow W itkin’ s witne sse s ba se d on the inform ation W itkin ga v e him , not wha t W itkin might ha

ve known but not told the offic e r. The re is no de nia l of due proc e ss in de ny i ng a

pa rty le ave to c a ll witne sse s if the pa rty provide s no ba sis in the re c ord de m onstra

ting thewitne sse s ha

v e re le va nt te stim ony . Se e He rna

nde z v. Holla n d, 750 F.3d 843, 860-61 (9th C ir. 2014); Zim m e rle e v. Ke e ne y , 831 F.2d 183, 187-88 (9th C ir. 1987) (pe r c uriam ).

2. W itkin a lso c l a im s tha

t the re wa s insuffic ie nt e vide nc e to support the he aring offic e r’ s ruling. Howe ve r, the sta n da rd of proof re quire d of the prison wa s

“ som e e v ide nc e , ” a

low sta n da rd. Supe rinte nde n t, M a ss. C orr. Inst., W a lpole v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 457 (1985); Zim m e rle e , 831 F.2d a

t 186. Thelibra

rian ’ s te stim ony am ounte d to “ som e e vide nc e .” The e vide nc e , if be l ie ve d, suffic e d to show tha t W itkin disrupte d libra

ry ope ra t ions a

nd e nga ge d in be hav ior tha t m ight have le d to disorde r in the libra ry . Though W itkin a

rgue s tha t his disruption of the
4libra

ry wa s not a

“ se rious” rule s viola

tion, he c ite s no a

uthority tha t shows tha

t disruption of the

e ntire prison wa s ne c e ssa ry to support his c onvic tion, nor tha t the sta te c o urt’ s de te rm inat ion wa s a n unre a sona

ble a pplic at ion of Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt or a

n unre a sona

ble de te rm ination of thefa c ts. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d). Though In re Gom e z he ld tha t re fusa l of nine m e a ls a s pa rt of a la rge r hunge r strike
wa s insuffic ie nt to find a

viola tion of se c tion 3005(a

) of the C a lifornia

C o de of R e gula tions, the c a s e doe s not spe ak to whe the r c a using a disturba nc e to a pa rt of a fa c i lity , in this c a se the libra ry , by be ing “ l oud a

n d a rgum e ntative ” and “ in a

ra ise d voic e c a using a disturba n c e and disrupting othe

r” inm ate s suffic e s. Se e In re Gom e z , 201 C a l. R

p tr. 3d 124 (C t. App. 2016). In re Gom e z a lso doe s not show that the sta te c ourt’ s de te rm ination in W itkin’ s c a se wa s a n unre a sona

b le
a pplic ation of Supre m e C ourt pre c e de nt or a n unre a sona

ble de te rm ination of the fa c t s. Se e 28 U.S.C . § 2254(d).

AFFIRM E D
.

5