Opinion
No. 09-17872.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed April 14, 2011.
James J. Brosnahan, Samuel S. Song, Morrison Foerster, LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
Denise A. Yates, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Claudia A. Wilken, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 4:08-cv-02643-CW.
Before: REINHARDT, HAWKINS, and GOULD, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Warden Vince Cullen appeals the district court's grant of Stephen Liebb's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Liebb argued that there was not "some evidence" to support the denial of his parole. In light of Swarthout v. Cooke, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam), we hold that Liebb's federal right of due process was not violated. Liebb does not argue that he was denied an opportunity to speak at his hearing and contest the evidence against him, that he was denied access to his record in advance, or that he was not notified of the reasons why parole was denied. See id. at 862. Accordingly, we reverse the district court's grant of his habeas petition.