Najjar v. Yusuff ( 2003 )

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT October 24, 2003
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60200
Summary Calendar
SAMIR NAJJAR,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
KHURSHID Z. YUSUFF, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 5:02-CV-93-RG
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Samir Najjar, federal prisoner # 28828-018, appeals
the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas
corpus petition, challenging his prison disciplinary conviction
which resulted in the loss of 14 days’ good-conduct time.
Najjar renews his claim that he was denied due process at the
disciplinary hearing. He also renews the claim, raised in
his original petition, that his equal protection rights were
violated; however, he makes no argument beyond the conclusional
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
No. 03-60200
-2-
assertion that he was denied equal protection, and the claim is
thus waived. See Royal v. Tombone, 141 F.3d 596, 599 n.3
(5th Cir. 1998). Alternatively, the claim fails because Najjar
makes no argument that he is a member of any protected class.
See Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 247-48 (1976).
Najjar’s due process claims are similarly unavailing.
Najjar’s assertion that he did not receive the requisite notice
of the charges against him is incorrect; although he was charged
with lying or providing a false statement to staff and was
ultimately convicted of attempted lying, as the district court
determined, the elements of the offense of lying and attempted
lying are the same, the difference being only that in the latter
case, the offense was not successfully completed. The notice
Najjar received was thus constitutionally sufficient. See Wolff
v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974). Moreover, Najjar has
not alleged any prejudice resulting from the allegedly defective
notice, which failure defeats his claim. See Hallmark v. Johnson,
118 F.3d 1073, 1080 (5th Cir. 1997).
The denial of Najjar’s requested witness likewise did not
violate due process. See Wolff, 418 U.S. at 566. Moreover,
even if the hearing officer erred in excluding his witnesses,
Najjar has not shown that he was prejudiced, defeating his claim.
See Banuelos v. McFarland, 41 F.3d 232, 234 (5th Cir. 1995).
To the extent that Najjar’s remaining claims, that the
hearing officer erred in relying on private, confidential records
No. 03-60200
-3-
and that Dr. Casiano was an incredible witness, can be construed
as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to support his
disciplinary conviction, the claims fail because there was ample
evidence to support the finding of guilt, as delineated in the
hearing officer’s written report. See Hudson, 242 F.3d at 536-37.
Najjar’s claims are essentially a challenge to the weight and
credibility the hearing officer afforded the evidence against
him, but this court will not consider such claims. See id.
at 537; see also Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst., Walpole
v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
Najjar has not demonstrated any error in the district
court’s judgment. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED.