Jeremy Gauthier v. DEBRA HERNDON, 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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY GAUTHIER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DEBRA HERNDON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 08-56444
D.C. No. 8:07-cv-00476-SJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Jeremy Gauthier appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issues of (1) whether the1
hearing officer was biased; (2) whether Gauthier received adequate notice of the
charge; and (3) whether the decision finding Gauthier guilty of trafficking
narcotics on prison grounds was supported by some evidence. The state has fully
briefed the issues that we certify for appeal.
08-56444 2
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.1
Gauthier challenges a disciplinary decision in which he was found guilty of
trafficking narcotics on prison grounds. Gauthier first contends that the hearing
officer presiding over the disciplinary proceeding was biased. The record does not
demonstrate that the hearing officer was biased or suppressed evidence of
innocence. See Edwards v. Balisok, 520 U.S. 641, 647 (1997); Liteky v. United
States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994).
Gauthier also contends that he did not receive adequate notice of the
charges. This contention fails because Gauthier was provided with enough
information about the factual basis for the charge “to enable him to marshal the
facts and prepare a defense.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974); see
also Zimmerlee v. Keeney, 831 F.2d 183, 188 (9th Cir. 1987).
The state court’s conclusion that some evidence supports the decision was
not objectively unreasonable. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Superintendent v.
Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454 (1985).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-56444 3
Finally, Gauthier raises an equal protection claim that he did not present to
the district court. We decline to consider this claim for the first time on appeal.
See Sophanthavong v. Palmateer, 378 F.3d 859, 872 (9th Cir. 2004).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --