United States v. 2020-05-13 | 19-17297 | ROBERTO DARDEN V. BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE | nonprecedential | memorandum disposition |

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ROBERTO ANTOINE DARDEN,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 19-17297

D.C. No. 4:18-cv-00541-JGZ

MEMORANDUM
*

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Jennifer G. Zipps, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 6, 2020
**

Before: BERZON, N.R. SMITH, and MILLER, Circuit Judges.

Federal prisoner Roberto Antoine Darden appeals pro se from the district
court’s judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition for a writ of habeas
corpus. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the
denial of a § 2241 petition, see Lane v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir.

*
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). Accordingly, Darden’s
request for oral argument is denied.
FILED

MAY 13 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

2 19-17297
2018), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 60 (2019), and we affirm.
Darden challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding that resulted in
disallowance of good conduct time. He contends that he was not provided with
sufficient notice of the charges, and that he was denied the opportunity to present
exculpatory documentary evidence. However, over a week before his disciplinary
hearing, Darden was provided a copy of the incident report and a rights advisement
that gave him clarity as to the charge and sufficient opportunity to prepare his
defense. See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 564 (1974). Further, he did not
inform the disciplinary hearing officer (“DHO”) that he sought to present any
evidence or that he was having difficulty obtaining the documents. On this record,
Darden has not shown he was denied due process. See id. at 566-67.
Darden next contends that, because he shared his cell with another inmate,
there was insufficient evidence that he controlled the locker in which the
improvised weapon was found. However, the evidence considered by the DHO,
including the report by the searching correctional officer and Darden’s statement at
the disciplinary hearing that the weapon “didn’t look like that,” supported the
DHO’s determination. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (due
process is satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision).
Darden’s motion for appointment of counsel is denied.
AFFIRMED.