DANIEL RODRIGUEZ V. STEPHEN MORRIS, ET AL, No. 21-17101 (9th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED DEC 15 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DANIEL ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-17101 D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02092-JJT MEMORANDUM* STEPHEN MORRIS; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF ARIZONA, Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Arizona John J. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 8, 2022** Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. Arizona state prisoner Daniel Alexander Rodriguez appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging his prison disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under * 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). 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Lopez v. Schriro, 491 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm. Rodriguez contends that his procedural due process rights were violated when he was denied the opportunity to present a witness statement from the injured officer prepared for his cellmate’s disciplinary proceeding. The Arizona Court of Appeals rejected this claim on the basis that Rodriguez could not show prejudice from the exclusion of the witness statement. The state court’s conclusion was not an unreasonable application of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974) (discussing inmates’ procedural due process right to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in prison disciplinary proceedings), nor an unreasonable determination of the facts based on the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). The record shows there is “some evidence” that numerous inmates— including Rodriguez—committed the offense and, therefore, the witness statement would not have exculpated him. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (“We hold that the requirements of due process are satisfied if some evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board to revoke good time credits.”). AFFIRMED. 2 21-17101
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.
