Gustavo Mancha v. J. E. Thomas

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
GUSTAVO MANCHA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. E. THOMAS,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 12-35552
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00960-HO
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Oregon
Michael R. Hogan, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 17, 2013**
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and GRABER, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Gustavo Mancha appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
FILED
DEC 19 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo,
see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm.
Mancha contends that the disciplinary proceedings, which resulted in the
loss of 40 days of good-time credits, violated his due process rights because he did
not receive written notice of the particular disciplinary code provision that he was
ultimately convicted of violating and because he was found guilty of a different
disciplinary violation than the one charged in the incident report. These
contentions are unavailing because Mancha was afforded the minimal procedural
requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-64 (1974), and the incident
report provided him with the functions of notice required by Wolff. See Bostic v.
Carlson, 884 F.2d 1267, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 1989).
Mancha also contends that the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) was not
impartial because he found Mancha to have violated a different code provision than
was charged in the incident report. On this record, the DHO’s finding does not
show that Mancha was denied an impartial decision maker in violation of due
process. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994) (unfavorable or
adverse rulings alone are insufficient to show bias unless they reflect such extreme
favoritism or antagonism that the exercise of fair judgment is precluded); Wolff,
418 U.S. at 570-71 (establishing due process right to impartial decision maker).
AFFIRMED.
12-35552 2

-- 2 of 2 --