Frank Huie v. Jeanne S. Woodford

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).
EG/Research
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
FRANK HUIE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JEANNE S. WOODFORD,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-15440
D.C. No. CV-04-06363-AWI
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Anthony W. Ishii, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 15, 2009**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Frank Huie appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the loss of
good time credits. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we
FILED
JAN 07 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EG/Research 07-15440 2
affirm.
Huie contends that the disciplinary process leading to revocation of his good
time credits violated his due process rights. The California court’s determination
that Huie was afforded his due process rights was not an unreasonable application
of federal law. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-69 (1974) (holding that
inmate is entitled to advance written notice of disciplinary charges, an opportunity
to present a defense, and an explanation for the decision). Furthermore, our review
of the record indicates there was “some evidence” to support the disciplinary
decision. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
Huie’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --