Gilberto Moralez v. Louis Winn ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 24 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GILBERTO GARCIA MORALEZ, a.k.a. No. 14-15878
Heriberto Moralez,
D.C. No. 4:13-cv-00430-LAB
Petitioner - Appellant,
v. MEMORANDUM*
LOUIS WINN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Leslie Ann Bowman, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 17, 2015***
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, LEAVY, and FERNANDEZ, Circuit Judges.
Gilberto Garcia Moralez appeals, pro se, from the district court’s judgment
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition seeking an order expunging
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.
***
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
an incident report and restoring his good conduct time and non-vested good time
credit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
district court’s decision to deny a section 2241 petition, United States v. Lemoine,
546 F.3d 1042, 1046 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Moralez challenges the disciplinary hearing officer’s (“DHO”) finding that
he engaged in disruptive conduct similar to stealing. He contends that he did not
engage in prohibited conduct and that the proceedings violated his constitutional
rights. The record reflects that the proper procedural safeguards were met and that
“some evidence” supports the DHO findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.
445, 455-56 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence”
supports the disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557 (1974)
(setting forth due process requirements in prison disciplinary proceedings that
implicate a liberty interest).
We reject as unsupported Moralez’s contention that his rights under the
Equal Protection Clause were violated. See Bostic v. Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1271
(9th Cir. 1989).
AFFIRMED.
2 14-15878