Jeremy Pinson v. Barbara Von Blanckensee ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 23 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JEREMY VAUGHN PINSON, No. 21-16138
Petitioner-Appellant, D.C. No. 4:19-cv-00584-RM
v.
MEMORANDUM*
BARBARA VON BLANCKENSEE,
Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Rosemary Márquez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted June 15, 2022**
Before: SILVERMAN, WATFORD, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.
Federal prisoner Jeremy Vaughn Pinson appeals pro se from the district
court’s orders denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas petition challenging a prison
disciplinary hearing and her motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction
under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the denial of a § 2241 petition de novo, see
*
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).
Lane v. Swain, 910 F.3d 1293, 1295 (9th Cir. 2018), and the denial of a
reconsideration motion for abuse of discretion, see Sch. Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah
Cnty., Or. v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255, 1262 (9th Cir. 1993). We affirm.
The record demonstrates that Pinson did not properly exhaust her
administrative remedies before filing her § 2241 petition. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 542.15,
542.18; Martinez v. Roberts, 804 F.2d 570, 571 (9th Cir. 1986). Even assuming
Pinson’s failure to exhaust should be excused, however, we agree with the district
court that her claims fail on the merits.
The record shows that Pinson’s disciplinary proceedings comported with due
process, and that “some evidence” supports the disciplinary officer’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). The district court did not err by relying on the prison
records or by failing to give more weight to Pinson’s uncorroborated declarations
challenging their veracity. See Turner v. Calderon, 281 F.3d 851, 881 (9th Cir.
2002) (concluding that self-serving statements, without more, were insufficient to
demonstrate a constitutional violation in a habeas action). Finally, the district
court properly concluded that Pinson failed to articulate a First Amendment
retaliation claim. See Rhodes v. Robinson, 408 F.3d 559, 567-68 (9th Cir. 2005)
2 21-16138
(stating the elements of a retaliation claim in the prison context).
AFFIRMED.
3 21-16138