ANTHONY PATTERSON V. R. GUTIERREZ, No. 15-55998 (9th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

FILED OCT 31 2016 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ANTHONY PATTERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, No. 15-55998 D.C. No. 2:13-cv-04842-MWF v. MEMORANDUM* R. PHILLIP GUTIERREZ, Respondent-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Michael W. Fitzgerald, District Judge, Presiding Submitted October 25, 2016** Before: LEAVY, GRABER, and GOULD, Circuit Judges. Federal prisoner Anthony Patterson appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the loss of good conduct time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a district court’s denial of * 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). a section 2241 habeas corpus petition, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm. Patterson contends that the Disciplinary Hearing Officer relied on insufficient evidence to find he assaulted his cellmate. Contrary to Patterson’s contention, the sanctions imposed are supported by “some evidence.” See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985). Moreover, the record shows that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the procedural due process requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72 (1974). The district court received and reviewed all materials in the record even though the materials are under seal. The district court, therefore, properly denied Patterson’s habeas petition. Patterson’s request for counsel is denied. AFFIRMED. 2 15-55998

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.