Legal Opinion
Arthur v. Ayers
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Decided July 29, 2002No. 00-16776; D.C. No. CV-00-02176-CWPublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM **
Andre Arthur, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se the district court’s summary dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition challenging a prison disciplinary ruling, finding that he possessed inmate-manufactured alcohol, which resulted in the loss of 91 days of good time credit. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253. We review de novo a district court’s dismissal of a habeas corpus peti*57tion, see Morales v. Calderon, 85 F.3d 1387, 1389 n. 6 (9th Cir.1996), and we affirm.
Arthur contends that his due process rights were violated because his conviction was supported…
2Cases cited5 opinions
- Wolff v. McDonnellSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Sandin v. ConnerSupreme Court of the United States · 1995
- Superintendent, Mass. Correctional Institution at Walpole v. HillSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- Andrew John Walker, Plaintiff-Appellant-Cross-Appellee v. George W. Sumner, Defendants-Appellees-Cross-AppellantsCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1994
- Michael Angelo MORALES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arthur CALDERON, Warden, Respondent-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1996
3Cited by6 opinions
- Blake v. WardenDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2019
- Fleming v. GalipeauDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2021
- Fleming v. GalipeauDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2021
- McCorker v. WardenDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2020
- Tracy v. WardenDistrict Court, N.D. Indiana · 2020
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.