Narrative Opinion Summary
William Baumer, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition. The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and reviews the denial de novo, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision. Baumer argues he was denied due process due to violations of state regulations concerning notice of misconduct charges. However, the court finds that Baumer received adequate due process, including written notice of the charge, a statement of the evidence, and the opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, as established in Wolff v. McDonnell. Even if the prison did not adhere to its own procedural regulations, federal due process does not mandate compliance with those regulations, as clarified in Walker v. Sumner. The court affirms the lower court's ruling and notes that this disposition is unpublished and not to be cited in future cases, in accordance with Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Due Process Requirements in Prison Disciplinary Proceedingssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Baumer's claim of due process violations due to lack of notice was dismissed as he received the required procedural protections articulated in Wolff v. McDonnell.
Reasoning: Baumer argues he was denied due process due to violations of state regulations concerning notice of misconduct charges. However, the court finds that Baumer received adequate due process, including written notice of the charge, a statement of the evidence, and the opportunity to call witnesses and present evidence, as established in Wolff v. McDonnell.
Federal Due Process and State Procedural Regulationssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court clarifies that federal due process does not require adherence to state procedural regulations, referencing Walker v. Sumner.
Reasoning: Even if the prison did not adhere to its own procedural regulations, federal due process does not mandate compliance with those regulations, as clarified in Walker v. Sumner.
Habeas Corpus Review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The district court's denial of Baumer's habeas corpus petition is subject to de novo review under 28 U.S.C. § 2253.
Reasoning: The court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253 and reviews the denial de novo, ultimately affirming the lower court's decision.
Precedential Value of Unpublished Dispositionssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court's decision remains non-citable in future cases under Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Reasoning: The court affirms the lower court's ruling and notes that this disposition is unpublished and not to be cited in future cases, in accordance with Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.