Nicholas J. Queen v. DAVID SHINN, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NICHOLAS J. QUEEN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
DAVID SHINN, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-56602
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-05397-JFW
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Nicholas J. Queen appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. We
have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Ivy v. Pontesso,
328 F.3d 1057, 1059 (9th Cir. 2003), we affirm.
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
FILED
JAN 17 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-56602
Queen challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was
sanctioned with the disallowance of good conduct time after he was found to have
committed the prohibited act of attempted assault on another inmate. Queen
maintains that his procedural due process rights were violated during the
proceedings because the prison appointed his staff representative on the day of the
disciplinary hearing and because he did not receive a copy of the Disciplinary
Hearing Officer’s report until after he began his administrative appeal. The record
shows that the disciplinary proceedings complied with the procedural due process
requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72 (1974).
Queen next contends that, because he did not challenge the sufficiency of the
evidence to support the disciplinary decision, the district court improperly applied
Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985), to his habeas petition. The
district court’s reliance on Hill was not error. After determining that the prison’s
disciplinary proceeding complied with Wolff, the district court correctly noted that
due process requires “some evidence” to support the decision to revoke good time
credits, see Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, and concluded that this standard was met in
Queen’s case.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --