Cesar R. Avila v. MICHAEL CARR, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CESAR R. AVILA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL CARR, Warden,
Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-55936
D.C. No. 5:16-cv-02582-JAK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
John A. Kronstadt, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted January 15, 2019**
Before: TROTT, TALLMAN, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Cesar R. Avila 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 Tablada v.
Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), 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 18 2019
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 17-55936
Avila’s section 2241 petition alleged that his procedural due process rights
were violated because the prison failed to comply with regulations requiring that
an incident report be adjudicated within five working days of issuance. The
district court properly rejected this claim because it is not supported by the law or
the record. Instead, the record is clear that the disciplinary proceedings against
Avila comported with the minimal procedural due process requirements outlined in
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-68 (1974).
We decline to address Avila’s additional challenges to his disciplinary
proceedings because they were not raised in the district court. See Padgett v.
Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).
We also decline to address the government’s argument that Avila’s failure to
exhaust his administrative remedies precludes habeas relief.
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --