Opinion ID: 667781
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Direct Order

Text: 24 Carr contends that he was never directly ordered to submit to a urinalysis test, and therefore he should not have been disciplined for refusing to take it. This contention lacks merit. 25 In the context of prison disciplinary proceedings, the requirements of due process are satisfied if there is some evidence to support the findings of the prison disciplinary board. Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1269-70 (9th Cir.1989) (citations omitted). The relevant inquiry is  'whether there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board.'  Id. at 1270 (quoting Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56 (1989)). 26 Carr alleged that defendant Cook told him I need you to give me a U/A. When Carr inquired as to why he was being asked to provide a urine sample, Cook responded that he had been randomly selected. Given these circumstances, we agree with the district court that the factual allegations constitute some evidence that defendant Cook had given Carr a direct order. See Bostic, 884 F.2d at 1269-70. 27 AFFIRMED.