Case Name: Jonathan RODRIGUEZ-RUIZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. Becky CLAY, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Oakdale, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-23
Citations: 691 F. App'x 213
Docket Number: No. 16-30833 Summary Calendar
Parties: Jonathan RODRIGUEZ-RUIZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. Becky CLAY, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Oakdale, Respondent-Appellee
Judges: Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 213–213

Head Matter:
Jonathan RODRIGUEZ-RUIZ, Petitioner-Appellant v. Becky CLAY, Warden, Federal Correctional Institution Oakdale, Respondent-Appellee
No. 16-30833 Summary Calendar
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Filed June 23, 2017
Jonathan Rodriguez-Ruiz,'Pro Se
Before STEWART, Chief Judge, and CLEMENT and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Rodriguez-Ruiz, federal prisoner # 44015-177, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging his disciplinary conviction for engaging in or encouraging a group demonstration. He contends that he was .not guilty of the infraction because he acted as a translator for the other inmates. Rodriguez-Ruiz also claims that the hearing officer violated his due process rights by denying his request to call witnesses.
The incident report constituted sufficient evidence of the offense because it detailed how Rodriguez-Ruiz encouraged other inmates to gather around a prison official. See Hudson v. Johnson, 242 F.3d 534, 536-37 (5th Cir. 2001). The hearing officer report indicates that Rodriguez-Ruiz was informed of his right to call witnesses but did not avail himself of the opportunity and, thus, there was no violation of his due process rights. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-70, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.