Case Name: Celafoi DOLY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul COPENHAVER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-14
Citations: 624 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: No. 15-15779
Parties: Celafoi DOLY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul COPENHAVER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 548–549

Head Matter:
Celafoi DOLY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Paul COPENHAVER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-15779.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2015.
Filed Dec. 14, 2015.
Celafoi Doly, Atwater CA, pro se.
Mia A. Giacomazzi, Assistant U.S., DOJ-USAO, Fresno, CA, for Respondent-Ap-pellee.
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, 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
Federal prisoner Celafoi Doly appeals pro se from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir.2008), and we affirm.
Doly contends that the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine whether two inmate affidavits, presented for the first time in the district court, established that he did not commit the charged offense. Even considering these affidavits, the record reflects that Dotys disciplinary hearing comported with due process and "some evidence" supports the disciplinary officer's findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if "some evidence" supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). Because the record conclusively shows that Doly was not entitled to relief under section 2241, no evidentiary hearing was required. See Anderson v. United States, 898 F.2d 751, 753 (9th Cir.1990).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.