Nathaniel Williams v. Claude E. Finn

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NOT FOR PUBLICATION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
NATHANIEL WILLIAMS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
CLAUDE E. FINN,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 09-16010
D.C. No. 2:06-cv-01546-GEB
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Garland E. Burrell, Jr., District Judge, Presiding
Submitted August 10, 2010**
Before: HAWKINS, McKEOWN, and IKUTA, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Nathaniel Williams appeals from the district court’s
judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the loss of
good time credits following prison disciplinary proceedings for unlawful influence
of staff. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
FILED
AUG 26 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 2 --

09-16010 2
Williams contends that his due process rights were violated when he was
denied the opportunity to call four staff witnesses at the prison disciplinary
hearing. In light of the record, the witnesses’ proposed testimony was irrelevant
and any exclusion was harmless. Therefore, the California court’s determination
that Williams was afforded his due process rights was not contrary to, or an
unreasonable application of, clearly established Supreme Court law. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254(d)(1); see also Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 637 (1993); Wolff v.
McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566 (1974).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --