# Brian Brown v. Richard Ives

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · July 3, 2017 · 693 F. App'x 547

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4183174

## Case

- **Full name:** Brian L. BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard IVES, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** July 3, 2017
- **Citations:** 693 F. App'x 547
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Paez, Bea, Murguia
- **Nature of suit:** Habeas
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4183174

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 3 2017
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

BRIAN L. BROWN, Nos. 15-56885
16-55131
Petitioner-Appellant,
D.C. Nos. 2:14-cv-02518-SVW
v. 2:14-cv-02643-SVW

RICHARD IVES, Warden,
MEMORANDUM*
Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Stephen V. Wilson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted June 26, 2017**

Before: PAEZ, BEA, and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges.

In these appeals, Brian L. Brown appeals pro se from the district court’s

judgments denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petitions challenging two prison

disciplinary hearings. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review

the denial of a section 2241 petition de novo, see Tablada v. Thomas, 533 F.3d

*
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).
800, 805 (9th Cir. 2008), and we affirm in both cases.

In Appeal No. 15-56885, Brown challenges the findings of the disciplinary

hearing officer (“DHO”) that he committed (1) assault and threatening bodily

harm, and (2) assault. In Appeal No. 16-55131, Brown again challenges the first

finding. The record reflects that both of Brown’s disciplinary hearings comported

with due process and “some evidence” supports the DHO’s findings. See

Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455 (1985) (requirements of due process are

satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision); Wolff v. McDonnell,

418 U.S. 539, 563-71 (1974) (setting forth due process requirements for prison

disciplinary proceedings). We reject Brown’s challenges to the district court’s

handling of his petitions.

Brown’s motions to file the untimely and oversized reply brief are granted.

The Clerk shall file the reply brief at Docket Entry No. 39 in Appeal No. 15-

56885, and at Docket Entry No. 38 in Appeal No. 16-55131.

AFFIRMED.

2 15-56885 & 16-55131

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4183174. Public record. Not legal advice.