Francis Raj v. Michael Benov , 548 F. App'x 455 ( 2013 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 09 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANCIS RAJ, No. 11-17469
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:11-cv-01165-LJO
v.
MEMORANDUM*
MICHAEL L. BENOV, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 19, 2013**
Before: CANBY, TROTT, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.
Francis Raj appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a prison disciplinary action that resulted
in the loss of good time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 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 denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533
F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Raj was found to have violated the Bureau of Prisons’ Prohibited Acts Code
104, based on his possession of a razor blade. See 28 C.F.R. § 541.13, Table 3,
Code 104 (2010) (prohibiting “[p]ossession, manufacture, or introduction of a gun,
firearm, weapon, sharpened instrument, knife, dangerous chemical, explosive or
any ammunition”). Raj contends that this finding was not supported because a
razor blade is not a “weapon” or “sharpened instrument.” This contention is
unavailing because a razor blade removed from a disposable razor is inherently
dangerous. Accordingly, Raj’s due process rights were not violated because some
evidence supports the disciplinary findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.
445, 455 (1985).
In his reply brief, Raj also contends that the disciplinary hearing officer at
Taft Correctional Institution lacked authority to discipline him. Because this
contention was not raised in Raj’s petition before the district court, we decline to
consider it on appeal. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir.
1994) (“Habeas claims that are not raised before the district court in the petition are
not cognizable on appeal.”).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-17469