
    Lorenzo FOSSELMAN, aka Lorenzo Fosselman, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. M.S. EVANS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 11-15344.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted June 9, 2014.
    Filed June 16, 2014.
    Lorenzo Fosselman, Imperial, CA, pro se.
    Kasey E. Jones, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SCHROEDER, GRABER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

Lorenzo Fosselman, a California state prisoner, appeals the district court’s order denying habeas relief from a 30-day disciplinary reduction of good time credits. Fosselman was disciplined because he refused to respond to an interview demand from prison officials who were investigating recent gang activity within the prison. Fosselman argues that the reduction in good time credits violated his due process rights. We conclude that the state court’s denial of relief was neither contrary to clearly established Federal law nor based on an unreasonable determination of the facts. 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d).

Fosselman contends that, because there was no prison regulation expressly requiring inmates to participate in investigatory interviews, he was not given adequate notice that his conduct was sanctionable. Prison regulations clearly state, however, that “[i]nmates and parolees must promptly and courteously obey written and verbal orders.” CaLCode Regs. tit. 15, s. 3005(b). Fosselman failed to obey an order to appear for an interview. Notice was adequate.

Fosselman also argues that the interview request was unnecessary because prison officials had already completed their investigation of gang activity, and he had no pertinent information to provide. The disciplinary decisions of prison officials “must be supported by some evidence.” Superintendent, Mass. Corr. Inst. v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 447, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 856 (1985). Here, there was some evidence that Fosselman refused to obey an order to appear for an interview, that gang activity was an ongoing concern, and that interviews were necessary to ensure the safety of inmates and prison staff.

The district court’s denial of Fossel-man’s habeas petition is AFFIRMED. 
      
       This, disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     