Richard Manuel Burgos, Petitioner-appellant, v. P.l. Kernan; Attorney General, State of California,respondents-appellees, 104 F.3d 365 (9th Cir. 1996)
Annotate this CaseBefore: SNEED, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
MEMORANDUM**
California state prisoner Richard Burgos appeals pro se the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was found guilty of manufacturing a silencer and was assessed 75 days of good time credits. We have reviewed the record and affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation, filed on July 11, 1995, and adopted by the district court on January 16, 1996.
We reject Burgos's claim that the district court erred by not conducting an in camera review of the confidential information. Such a review was unnecessary in light of the corroborating testimony of witness Bates. See Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 186-87 (9th Cir. 1987) (noting that reliability may be established either by corroborating testimony or through an in camera review), cert. denied, 487 U.S. 1207 (1988).
AFFIRMED.
The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 9th Cir.R. 34-4. Accordingly, Burgos's request for oral argument is denied
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir.R. 36-3
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.
