Lacedric Johnson v. James Walker , 513 F. App'x 686 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAR 22 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
LACEDRIC W. JOHNSON, No. 11-16994
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00067-WBS
v.
MEMORANDUM *
JAMES WALKER, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
William B. Shubb, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted March 12, 2013 **
Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner LaCedric W. Johnson appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging
a prison disciplinary action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
review the district court’s denial of a section 2254 petition de novo, see Lopez v.
Schriro, 491 F.3d 1029, 1036 (9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
Johnson contends that his due process rights were violated at his June 17,
2007, disciplinary proceeding because he is illiterate and was not provided with a
staff assistant. The record reflects that Johnson received all process that was due
and that some evidence supports the disciplinary findings. See Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974); see also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.
445, 455 (1985). Contrary to Johnson’s contention, the state court’s conclusion
that he was not illiterate and therefore not entitled to a staff assistant was neither
contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal
law, nor was the decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in
light of the evidence presented in the state court proceedings. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16994