Case Name: LaCedric W. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James WALKER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-22
Citations: 513 F. App'x 686
Docket Number: No. 11-16994
Parties: LaCedric W. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James WALKER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 686–686

Head Matter:
LaCedric W. JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James WALKER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 11-16994.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 12, 2013.
Filed March 22, 2013.
LaCedric W. Johnson, Coalinga, CA, pro se.
Michael G. Lagrama, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, 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 LaCedric W. Johnson appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review the district court's denial of a section 2254 petition de novo, see Lopez v. Schriro, 491 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir.2007), and we affirm.
Johnson contends that his due process rights were violated at his June 17, 2007, disciplinary proceeding because he is illiterate and was not provided with a staff assistant. The record reflects that Johnson received all process that was due and that some evidence supports the disciplinary findings. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974); see also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985). Contrary to Johnson's contention, the state court's conclusion that he was not illiterate and therefore not entitled to a staff assistant was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was the decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.