Case Name: Treandous A. COTTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William MUNIZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-23
Citations: 623 F. App'x 310
Docket Number: No. 14-16353
Parties: Treandous A. COTTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William MUNIZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 623
Pages: 310–310

Head Matter:
Treandous A. COTTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William MUNIZ, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-16353.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 18, 2015.
Nov. 23, 2015.
Albert Joel Kutchins, Berkeley, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Michael G. Lagrama, Steven Grant Warner, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Treandous A. Cotton appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court's decision to deny a habe-as petition, see Murdaugh v. Ryan, 724 F.3d 1104, 1113 (9th Cir.2013), and we affirm.
Cotton contends that insufficient evidence supported his prison disciplinary rule violation for possession of an inmate-manufactured weapon. The state court's finding that "some evidence" supported the violation was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86. L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The evidence indicated' that the weapon was located under the mattress directly above Cotton's bunk, where it was readily accessible. The confined nature of the cell made it reasonable to determine that Cotton had knowledge of the weapon's presence, despite his cellmate's suggestion otherwise. For the same reasons, we disagree with Cotton's claim that the state court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.