QUEEN v. IVES (2019)

MEMORANDUM **

Federal prisoner Samuel Robert Queen, Jr., appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d 800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.

Queen challenges a prison disciplinary proceeding in which he was sanctioned with the disallowance of good conduct time after he was found to have committed the prohibited acts of possession of a hazardous tool and possession of stolen property. Queen claims that his due process rights were violated because he did not receive adequate advance written notice and because he was denied the ability to call witnesses and have staff representation. The record shows that the disciplinary proceedings comported with the minimal procedural due process requirements delineated in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 563-72, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974).

AFFIRMED.