Jermaine Antonio Armstrong v. Warden of Usp-Atwater

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. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JERMAINE ANTONIO ARMSTRONG,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OF USP-ATWATER,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-16879
D.C. No. 1:10-cv-00173
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Dennis L. Beck, Magistrate Judge, Presiding *
Submitted February 21, 2012***
Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Jermaine Antonio Armstrong appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
FEB 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-16879 2
Armstrong contends that his due process rights were violated by a
Disciplinary Hearing Officer’s (“DHO”) determination that Armstrong committed
the prohibited act of “Killing (Aiding and Abetting)” of another inmate. Contrary
to Armstrong’s contentions, as the district court properly concluded, the record
reflects that procedural safeguards were met and that “some evidence” supports the
DHO’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-56 (1985); Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 556 (1974) (“Prison disciplinary proceedings are not
part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in
such proceedings does not apply.”).
Armstrong also contends that he did not consent to the jurisdiction of the
magistrate judge. This contention is belied by the record.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --