Tony Alexander v. Scott Schleder

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 13 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TONY B. ALEXANDER, No. 11-16791
Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 1:09-cv-00434-DLB
v.
MEMORANDUM *
SCOTT SCHLEDER, Southeast Regional
DHO; et. al.,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **
Submitted February 11, 2013 ***
Before: FERNANDEZ, TASHIMA, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Tony B. Alexander appeals pro se from the district court’s
*
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). Accordingly, Alexander’s
request for oral argument is denied.
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a § 2241 petition de novo. See
Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008). The district court’s factual
findings are reviewed for clear error. See McNeely v. Blanas, 336 F.3d 822, 826
(9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.
Alexander contends that his due process rights were violated in the prison
disciplinary proceedings finding him guilty of two instances of engaging in sexual
acts. The record does not support his contention. The district court properly
denied the petition because Alexander received all process that was due and some
evidence supports the disciplinary findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S.
445, 455 (1985); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974).
We decline to consider Alexander’s argument alleging a violation of Brady
v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), because it was neither developed in the district
court nor raised in his opening brief. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2
(9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).
AFFIRMED.
2 11-16791