Benjamin Tillman v. H.A. RIOS, Jr.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision***
without oral argument. See Fed. R. Appellant. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BENJAMIN TILLMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
H.A. RIOS, Jr.,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 11-17121
D.C. No. 1:11-cv-00453-GSA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Gary S. Austin, Magistrate Judge, Presiding**
Submitted May 15, 2012***
Before: CANBY, GRABER, and M. SMITH, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Benjamin Tillman appeals pro se from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
FILED
MAY 22 2012
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

11-17121 2
Tillman first contends that the district court erroneously dismissed his claim
that his procedural due process rights were violated with respect to the January 6,
2010 incident. We need not decide whether the district court properly concluded
that this claim is not cognizable in habeas because the record shows that Tillman
was afforded the minimal procedural requirements of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418
U.S. 539, 563-68 (1974).
Second, Tillman contends that the Bureau of Prisons (BOP) violated a court
order by seeking to have him pay a fine at a higher rate than was ordered by the
sentencing court in order to participate in the Inmate Financial Responsibility
Program (IFRP). This contention is foreclosed. See United States v. Lemoine, 546
F.3d 1042, 1050 (9th Cir. 2008) (it is “within the BOP’s discretion to condition the
receipt of privileges under the IFRP on [the inmate’s] acceptance of the terms of its
financial plan”).
Third, Tillman contends that the January 7, 2010 incident report should be
expunged because of substantive and procedural due process violations. The
record reflects that Tillman was afforded the minimal procedural requirements of
Wolff and that some evidence supports the disciplinary findings. See Wolff, 418
U.S. at 563-68; see also Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985).

-- 2 of 3 --

11-17121 3
Fourth, Tillman contends that his due process rights were violated with
respect to the February 2, 2006 incident report because he did not receive the
report within 24 hours of the initial hearing and there was a delay in holding the
hearing. The record reflects that Tillman was accorded the procedural protections
required by Wolff.
Finally, Tillman contends that his due process rights were violated with
respect to the July 9, 2010 incident because the BOP failed to specify which rule
Tillman had violated. This contention is unpersuasive. See Bostic v. Carlson, 884
F.2d 1267, 1270-71 (9th Cir. 1989) (no due process violation as long as incident
report provides inmate with functions of notice required by Wolff).
Tillman’s request to remand to a different judge is denied.
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --