Victor Villegas v. Duke Terrell ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                      United States Court of Appeals
    FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
    ___________
    No. 09-3251
    ___________
    Victor Villegas,                         *
    *
    Appellant,                  *
    * Appeal from the United States
    v.                                 * District Court for the
    * District of Minnesota.
    Duke Terrell, Warden,                    *
    * [UNPUBLISHED]
    Appellee.                   *
    ___________
    Submitted: May 14, 2010
    Filed: May 19, 2010
    ___________
    Before WOLLMAN, COLLOTON, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.
    ___________
    PER CURIAM.
    Federal inmate Victor Villegas appeals the district court’s1 dismissal of his 28
    U.S.C. § 2241 petition with prejudice. In his petition, Villegas alleged that he had
    been improperly denied 40 days of good time credit when a Disciplinary Hearing
    Officer (DHO) relied on insufficient evidence to determine that he had committed a
    disciplinary violation. After careful de novo review, see Hill v. Morrison, 
    349 F.3d 1089
    , 1091 (8th Cir. 2003), we conclude that the district court did not err in its
    1
    The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District
    of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of Janie S. Mayeron, United
    States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.
    dismissal since Villegas’s petition showed that he had received a full hearing before
    the DHO, the DHO had made written findings sufficient to meet procedural due
    process requirements, and there was some evidence in the record supporting the
    DHO’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 
    472 U.S. 445
    , 455-56 (1985) (some
    evidence must support decision by prison disciplinary board to revoke good time
    credits; relevant question is whether there is any evidence in record that could support
    conclusion reached by disciplinary board); Dible v. Scholl, 
    506 F.3d 1106
    , 1110 (8th
    Cir. 2007) (in prisoner disciplinary proceeding, prisoner must receive advance written
    notice of charges, opportunity to call witnesses and present defense, and written
    statement of evidence relied upon by fact finder and reasons for disciplinary action);
    cf. Mason v. Sargent, 
    898 F.2d 679
    , 679-80 (8th Cir. 1990) (“some evidence” standard
    met where contraband was found in locker and inmate argued that another inmate had
    admitted placing it there).
    Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.
    ______________________________
    -2-
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-3251

Filed Date: 5/19/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/17/2021