Roberto Antoine Darden v. Barbara Von Blanckensee

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROBERTO ANTOINE DARDEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 22-15204
D.C. No. 4:21-cv-00042-JGZ
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 15, 2022**
Before: CANBY, CALLAHAN, and BADE, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Roberto Antoine Darden appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition, which
challenged a prison disciplinary proceeding that resulted in the loss of good
conduct time credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
NOV 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 22-15204
novo the dismissal of a § 2241 petition, see Alaimalo v. United States, 645 F.3d
1042, 1047 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.1
Darden contends that procedural irregularities at his initial prison
disciplinary hearing violated his due process rights. The district court properly
concluded that the October 2020 rehearing rendered moot Darden’s procedural due
process challenges to the initial hearing. See Frank v. Schultz, 808 F.3d 762, 764
(9th Cir. 2015) (stating that administrative appeal process may cure due process
violations).
Darden further argues that the Regional Director’s decision to order a
rehearing violated his right to 24-hour notice of the charges as provided by federal
regulations and recognized in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974). The
authority Darden cites does not support his contention, and nothing in the record
suggests that the Regional Director’s order violated applicable regulations or the
procedural protections set forth in Wolff, 418 U.S. at 563-71.
AFFIRMED.
1 Darden’s motion to supplement the record on appeal is granted. We have
considered the supplemental materials as part of our review of this case.

-- 2 of 2 --