Daniel Alexander Rodriguez v. Stephen Morris; Attorney General for the State of Arizona

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIEL ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ,
Petitioner-Appellant,
v.
STEPHEN MORRIS; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
ARIZONA,
Respondents-Appellees.
No. 21-17101
D.C. No. 2:19-cv-02092-JJT
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
John J. Tuchi, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 8, 2022**
Before: WALLACE, TALLMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
Arizona state prisoner Daniel Alexander Rodriguez appeals pro se from the
district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas
corpus challenging his prison disciplinary proceedings. We have jurisdiction under
* 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
DEC 15 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-17101
28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo, see Lopez v. Schriro, 491 F.3d 1029, 1036
(9th Cir. 2007), and we affirm.
Rodriguez contends that his procedural due process rights were violated
when he was denied the opportunity to present a witness statement from the injured
officer prepared for his cellmate’s disciplinary proceeding. The Arizona Court of
Appeals rejected this claim on the basis that Rodriguez could not show prejudice
from the exclusion of the witness statement. The state court’s conclusion was not
an unreasonable application of Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974)
(discussing inmates’ procedural due process right to call witnesses and present
documentary evidence in prison disciplinary proceedings), nor an unreasonable
determination of the facts based on the evidence presented. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d). The record shows there is “some evidence” that numerous inmates—
including Rodriguez—committed the offense and, therefore, the witness statement
would not have exculpated him. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455
(1985) (“We hold that the requirements of due process are satisfied if some
evidence supports the decision by the prison disciplinary board to revoke good
time credits.”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --