DIONTE HOUFF V. BOP, No. 21-55037 (9th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 21 2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT DIONTE HOUFF, AKA Bird, AKA Birdman, AKA Tay, No. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 21-55037 D.C. No. 5:20-cv-00645-SB-AFM Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; FELIPE MARTINEZ, MEMORANDUM* Respondents-Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding Submitted December 14, 2021** Before: WALLACE, CLIFTON, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Dionte Houff appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, which challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was sanctioned with the loss of good * 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). conduct time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, see Lane v. Salazar, 911 F.3d 942, 947 (9th Cir. 2018), and we affirm. Houff first contends that the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) was not impartial because, inter alia, he relied on Houff’s silence when finding that Houff committed the prohibited act of possession of a weapon. Because other incriminating evidence was presented, the DHO properly drew an adverse inference from Houff’s silence. See Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 316-20 (1976). Houff’s other allegations of impartiality are unsupported by the record, which shows that he was not denied an impartial decision maker. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 570-71 (1974). Houff also contends that, in light of an apparent typographical error in the record of his prison disciplinary proceedings, there was insufficient evidence to show he committed a violation. Despite the error, due process was satisfied because there was “some evidence” supporting the decision. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Similarly, the fact that the investigator and the DHO gave slightly differing estimates of the length of Houff’s weapon does not demonstrate that the disciplinary decision was “not supported by any evidence.” Id. We do not address Houff’s contentions that the Bureau of Prisons failed to follow its administrative procedures and regulations because they are raised for the 2 21-55037 first time on appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009). AFFIRMED. 3 21-55037
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.
