BRIAN BROWN V. RICHARD IVES, No. 15-56885 (9th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED JUL 3 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT BRIAN L. BROWN, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS Nos. 15-56885 16-55131 Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. Nos. 2:14-cv-02518-SVW 2:14-cv-02643-SVW v. RICHARD IVES, Warden, MEMORANDUM* Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding Submitted June 26, 2017** Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges. In these appeals, Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s judgments denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions challenging two prison disciplinary hearings. 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 * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm in both cases. In Appeal No. 15-56885, Brown challenges the findings of the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) that he committed (1) assault and threatening bodily harm, and (2) assault. In Appeal No. 16-55131, Brown again challenges the first finding. The record reflects that both of Brown’s disciplinary hearings comported with due process and “some evidence” supports the DHO’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). We reject Brown’s challenges to the district court’s handling of his petitions. Brown’s motions to file the untimely and oversized reply brief are granted. The Clerk shall file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 39 in Appeal No. 1556885, and at Docket Entry No. 38 in Appeal No. 16-55131. AFFIRMED. 2 15-56885 & 16-55131

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.