Mario Rene Rubio v. C. M. HARRISON, Warden

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MARIO RENE RUBIO,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
C. M. HARRISON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 07-55110
D.C. No. CV-04-03710-MLR
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Manuel L. Real, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 11, 2010**
Before: BEEZER, TROTT, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Mario Rene Rubio appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
JAN 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

EG/Research 07-55110 2
Rubio contends that his prison disciplinary proceedings violated his due
process rights because there was insufficient evidence to support the hearing
officer’s finding that Rubio engaged in mutual combat. This contention fails
because “some evidence” in the record supports the finding. See Superintendent v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --