GARCIA v. KERNAN (2018)

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner George Garcia appeals from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition, which challenged the outcome of a prison disciplinary hearing and loss of sentencing credits. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1291 and 2253. We review de novo the denial of a habeas corpus petition, see Fairbank v. Ayers, 650 F.3d 1243, 1250 (9th Cir. 2011), and we affirm.

Garcia contends that the hearing officer’s determination that he committed assault on a peace officer was not supported by “some evidence.”

We agree with the district court that the California Court of Appeal’s decision was not contrary to or an unreasonable application of Hill’s minimally stringent “some evidence” standard of review, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 454-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (holding that the “some evidence” standard is satisfied if “there is any evidence in the record that could support the conclusion reached by the disciplinary board”). Apart from the challenged section of Officer Ibarra’s report, the record contains eyewitness evidence identifying Garcia as one of the participants in the incident and not someone who was merely present at the scene. Officer Ibarra’s report dated 09/04/12 “positively” identified Garcia as “acting in concert” during the offense of which he was found guilty. Although Garcia alleges that this evidence is unreliable because the officer’s vision was impaired due to exposure to pepper spray and he may have been mistaken about the location of photographs taken following the incident, the “some evidence” standard does not allow us to reweigh the strength of the evidence or second-guess prison disciplinary findings. See Hill, 472 U.S. at 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768; see also 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

AFFIRMED.