Cion Adonis Peralta v. D. Hermans, M. Hill; R. Campbell

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).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
CION ADONIS PERALTA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
D. HERMANS, M. HILL; R.
CAMPBELL,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 08-56234
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-05270-JVS
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
James V. Selna, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted July 19, 2010**
Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Cion Adonis Peralta appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging a
FILED
AUG 02 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether Peralta’s1
due process rights were violated at the disciplinary hearing where Peralta was
found guilty of threatening staff.
08-56234 2
prison disciplinary action. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 , and we1
affirm.
Peralta contends that his due process rights were violated at the disciplinary
hearing when he was precluded from calling staff and inmate witnesses and from
cross-examining the testifying witness. Peralta also contends that his due process
rights were violated when he was denied a mental health assessment prior to the
disciplinary hearing.
The record reflects that Peralta received all process that was due and that
some evidence supports the disciplinary findings. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 563-67 (1974); see also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455
(1985). Contrary to Peralta’s contentions, no due process violation resulted from
the failure to call witnesses who could not provide any new relevant information or
from the lack of the opportunity to cross-examine the testifying witness. See
Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U.S. 308, 321 (1976); see also Bostic v. Carlson, 884
F.2d 1267, 1271-72 (9th Cir. 1989). Moreover, the prison official’s determination
that no mental health assessment was required was neither contrary to, nor
involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, nor was

-- 2 of 3 --

08-56234 3
the decision based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the
evidence presented in the State court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1)-(2).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --