Miguel A. Ramirez v. E.K. MCDANIEL, Warden

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Ramirez has filed a request for oral argument. The request is denied**
because 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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
MIGUEL A. RAMIREZ,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
E.K. MCDANIEL, Warden,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 08-16579
D.C. No. 3:04-cv-00137-RLH
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Roger L. Hunt, Chief District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 19, 2010**
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, TALLMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Nevada state prisoner Miguel A. Ramirez appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
OCT 28 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

08-16579 2
Ramirez challenges a disciplinary decision in which he was found guilty of
assault and battery of another inmate. He contends that his due process rights were
violated because the prison disciplinary committee did not make a determination of
the credibility of the confidential informant. The committee found that the
informant was reliable. The state supreme court’s decision was not based on an
unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(2). The record also reflects that the state court’s rejection of this
claim was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of, clearly
established federal law as determined by the United States Supreme Court. See 28
U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1); Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-56 (1985).
Ramirez also contends that the district court should have held an evidentiary
hearing to consider newly discovered evidence. The district court did not abuse its
discretion by not holding an evidentiary hearing. See Estrada v. Scribner, 512
F.3d 1227, 1239 (9th Cir. 2008).
Ramirez further contends that the district court should have granted his
motion to appoint counsel. The district court did not abuse its discretion because
the case was not “so complex that due process violations [would have occurred]
absent the presence of counsel.” Bonin v. Vasquez, 999 F.2d 425, 428-29 (9th Cir.
1993) (order).

-- 2 of 3 --

08-16579 3
We construe Ramirez’s additional arguments as a motion to expand the
certificate of appealability. So construed, the motion is denied. See 9th Cir.
R. 22-1(e); see also Hiivala v. Wood, 195 F.3d 1098, 1104-05 (9th Cir. 1999) (per
curiam).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --