FRANCIS RAJ V. MICHAEL BENOV, No. 11-17469 (9th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 09 2013 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT FRANCIS RAJ, No. 11-17469 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01165-LJO v. MEMORANDUM* MICHAEL L. BENOV, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Lawrence J. O Neill, District Judge, Presiding Submitted November 19, 2013** Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges. Francis Raj appeals pro se from the district court s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary action that resulted in the loss of good time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We * 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). 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. Raj was found to have violated the Bureau of Prisons Prohibited Acts Code 104, based on his possession of a razor blade. See 28 C.F.R. § 541.13, Table 3, Code 104 (2010) (prohibiting [p]ossession, manufacture, or introduction of a gun, firearm, weapon, sharpened instrument, knife, dangerous chemical, explosive or any ammunition ). Raj contends that this finding was not supported because a razor blade is not a weapon or sharpened instrument. This contention is unavailing because a razor blade removed from a disposable razor is inherently dangerous. Accordingly, Raj s due process rights were not violated because some evidence supports the disciplinary findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). In his reply brief, Raj also contends that the disciplinary hearing officer at Taft Correctional Institution lacked authority to discipline him. Because this contention was not raised in Raj s petition before the district court, we decline to consider it on appeal. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir. 1994) ( Habeas claims that are not raised before the district court in the petition are not cognizable on appeal. ). AFFIRMED. 2 11-17469

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.