Celafoi Doly v. Paul Copenhaver

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CELAFOI DOLY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
PAUL COPENHAVER,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 15-15779
D.C. No. 1:14-cv-00522-LJO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Lawrence J. O’Neill, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 9, 2015**
Before: WALLACE, RAWLINSON, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Celafoi Doly appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a prison
disciplinary hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review
the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d
* 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).
FILED
DEC 14 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 15-15779
800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Doly contends that the district court erred by failing to hold an evidentiary
hearing to determine whether two inmate affidavits, presented for the first time in
the district court, established that he did not commit the charged offense. Even
considering these affidavits, the record reflects that Doly’s disciplinary hearing
comported with due process and “some evidence” supports the disciplinary
officer’s findings. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985)
(requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary
decision); Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due
process requirements for prison disciplinary proceedings). Because the record
conclusively shows that Doly was not entitled to relief under section 2241, no
evidentiary hearing was required. See Anderson v. United States, 898 F.2d 751,
753 (9th Cir. 1990).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --