Johnny Baker v. S. Lake ( 2020 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 10 2020
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JOHNNY BAKER, No. 19-16132
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 1:18-cv-01642-SKO
v.
S. LAKE; et al., MEMORANDUM*
Respondents-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Sheila K. Oberto, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted February 4, 2020***
Before: FERNANDEZ, SILVERMAN, and TALLMAN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Johnny Baker appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and its
order denying his motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 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).
U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the denial of a section 2241 petition, see Lane
v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 60 (2019),
and for abuse of discretion the denial of a reconsideration motion, see Sch. Dist.
No. 1J, Multnomah Cty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993).
We affirm.
Baker challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was
sanctioned with the disallowance of good conduct time. He contends that the
disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) was not impartial and that there was
insufficient evidence to support the DHO’s findings. Baker does not present any
evidence of partiality, but rather contends that an impartial decision maker would
have found he was not guilty of possessing narcotics. However, the evidence
considered by the DHO, including the drug test results, supported the DHO’s
finding. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (unfavorable or
adverse rulings alone are insufficient to show bias “unless they display a deep-
seated favoritism or antagonism that would make fair judgment impossible”);
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (due process is satisfied if “some
evidence” supports disciplinary decision).
AFFIRMED.
2 19-16132