Olausen v. Skolnik
Olausen v. Skolnik
Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
California state prisoner Jeffrey Olausen appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, 1 and we affirm.
Olausen challenges a prison disciplinary conviction for abuse of the prison grievance process. He contends that the conviction violates his due process rights because: (1) the hearing was held at Nevada State Prison, but pertained to conduct that occurred while he was at a different state prison; (2) he was denied access to his requested witnesses during the proceedings; and (3) no evidence exists to support his conviction. The state court decision is neither contrary to or an unreasonable application of federal law, nor an unreasonable determination of the facts. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 566-67, 94 S.Ct. 2963, 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (discussing extent of prisoner due process right to call witnesses in prison disciplinary decisions). Moreover, the record reflects there was “some evidence” supporting the disciplinary decision. Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985).
*688 Respondent’s motion to strike certain exhibits filed with Olausen’s opening brief is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
. We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issues of (1) whether Olausen’s due process rights were violated when the disciplinary hearing was held at Nevada State Prison for alleged offenses that occurred at Ely State Prison; (2) whether Olausen's due process rights were violated when he was denied a request to have witnesses testify at the hearing; and (3) whether some evidence supported the hearing officer’s findings. The state has fully briefed the issues that we certify for appeal.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.