Opinion
No. 09-15195 D.C. No. 2:04-cv-01182-JAM-DAD
12-21-2011
WILLIAM BLAINE MAYFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. THOMAS L. CAREY and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Respondents - Appellees.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
John A. Mendez, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 19, 2011
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
California state prisoner William Blaine Mayfield appeals from the district court's judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.
Mayfield contends that the Governor's 2002 decision to deny him parole was not supported by "some evidence" and therefore violated his due process rights. The only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural, and the only proper inquiry is what process the inmate received, not whether the state court decided the case correctly. Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863 (2011); Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir. 2011) (acknowledging Cooke and holding that due process does not require Governor to hold second suitability hearing before reversing parole grant); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying Cooke). Because Mayfield raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.