Zelos Fields v. J. L. Norwood

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). Accordingly, Fields’s
request for oral argument is denied.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ZELOS FIELDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. L. NORWOOD,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-56345
D.C. No. 5:08-cv-00173-VAP
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2012**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Zelos Fields 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
DEC 31 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

11-56345 2
Fields challenges a prison disciplinary violation that resulted in the loss of
good conduct time, contending that his right to due process was violated because
he was denied staff representation at his hearing, and because he did not knowingly
or voluntarily waive his right to staff representation. We review the denial of a
section 2241 habeas petition de novo. See Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805
(9th Cir. 2008).
The record reflects that Fields was afforded the minimal procedural
protections to which he was entitled. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-
67 (1974). Contrary to Fields’s contention, his case was not so complicated as to
entitle him to staff representation at his hearing. See id. at 570 (an inmate has a
right to assistance from a fellow inmate or staff where “the complexity of the issue
makes it unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence
necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case”). Therefore, we do not
reach Fields’s claim that his waiver of staff representation was unknowing and
involuntary.
To the extent that Fields argues that he was denied his right under Wolff to
call witnesses, this contention is not supported by the record, which reflects that
Fields never made a request to call witnesses, or identified any potential witnesses.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --