Treandous A. Cotton v. WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
TREANDOUS A. COTTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WILLIAM MUNIZ, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-16353
D.C. No. 3:13-cv-01239-WHA
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
William H. Alsup, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted November 18, 2015**
Before: TASHIMA, OWENS, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner Treandous A. Cotton appeals from the district
court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo the district court’s
decision to deny a habeas petition, see Murdaugh v. Ryan, 724 F.3d 1104, 1113
FILED
NOV 23 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
* 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).

-- 1 of 2 --

(9th Cir. 2013), and we affirm.
Cotton contends that insufficient evidence supported his prison disciplinary
rule violation for possession of an inmate-manufactured weapon. The state court’s
finding that “some evidence” supported the violation was neither contrary to, nor
an unreasonable application of, Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56
(1985). See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). The evidence indicated that the weapon was
located under the mattress directly above Cotton’s bunk, where it was readily
accessible. The confined nature of the cell made it reasonable to determine that
Cotton had knowledge of the weapon’s presence, despite his cellmate’s suggestion
otherwise. For the same reasons, we disagree with Cotton’s claim that the state
court’s decision was 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)(2).
AFFIRMED.
14-16353 2

-- 2 of 2 --