Jairo Mier-Cardenas v. Neil Adler, No. 09-16836 (9th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS OCT 04 2010 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JAIRO FERNANDO MIER-CARDENAS, Petitioner - Appellant, No. 09-16836 D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00209-LJO v. MEMORANDUM * NEIL H. ADLER, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted September 13, 2010 ** Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Jairo Fernando Mier-Cardenas appeals pro se from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Mier-Cardenas challenges a disciplinary decision in which he was found guilty of possession, manufacture, or introduction of a hazardous tool. He contends that he did not receive adequate notice of the charges. This contention fails because Mier-Cardenas was provided with enough information about the factual basis for the charge to enable him to marshal the facts and prepare a defense. Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974). Mier-Cardenas also contends that the hearing officer s decision was not supported by the evidence. Some evidence supports the prison disciplinary decision. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985). AFFIRMED. 2 09-16836

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.