GARY NIXON V. J. THOMAS, No. 12-36052 (9th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 21 2014 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT GARY NIXON, No. 12-36052 Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 3:11-cv-01292-KI v. MEMORANDUM* J. E. THOMAS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Garr M. King, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 13, 2014** Before: CLIFTON, BEA, and WATFORD, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Gary Nixon appeals 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. * 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). 2008), and we affirm. Nixon contends that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer ( DHO ) violated his due process rights by refusing to allow Lieutenant Payne to testify on the subject of prison policies regarding the opening of legal mail. The DHO excluded this testimony on the basis that he could independently research the prison s policies. Nixon argues that witness testimony cannot be excluded on this ground. We disagree. Lack of necessity is a proper basis on which to exclude testimony, and the record reflects that Nixon s proposed witness was unnecessary. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974). AFFIRMED. 2 12-36052
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.
