Donald Davis v. J. Shartle ( 2018 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 21 2018
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DONALD LEWIS DAVIS, No. 17-16796
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:17-cv-00045-JGZ
v.
MEMORANDUM*
J. T. SHARTLE, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 15, 2018**
Before: FARRIS, BYBEE, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Donald Lewis Davis appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Ivy v. Pontesso,
328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm.
*
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).
Davis contends that the prison violated his procedural due process rights by
imposing disciplinary sanctions on him without having warned him upon his
arrival to the prison about the Inmate Discipline Program or about the fact that
certain prohibited behaviors carry a mandatory “loss of good-time credit” sanction.
He relies on the U.S. Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)’s program statements, and his
contention that his signature was forged on an orientation attendance form, to
support this claim. Even if the program statements were to demonstrate a prison
policy of providing an overview of the Inmate Discipline Program’s mandatory
sanctions to incoming prisoners, a “habeas claim cannot be sustained based solely
upon the BOP’s purported violation of its own program statement because
noncompliance with a BOP program statement is not a violation of federal law.”
Reeb v. Thomas, 636 F.3d 1224, 1227 (9th Cir. 2011). Thus, Davis cannot
establish a due process violation.
Davis concedes that all disciplinary proceedings against him comported with
the minimal procedural due process requirements outlined in Wolff v. McDonnell,
418 U.S. 539, 563-68 (1974). Therefore, the district court did not err by
dismissing Davis’s petition.
AFFIRMED.
2 17-16796