Opinion
No. 08-15084.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
July 13, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Phyllis J. Hamilton, District Judge, Presiding D.C. No. CV-05-03369-PJH.
Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
California state prisoner Bernard Houston appeals 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.
Houston contends that the Board of Prison Terms' 2004 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); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir. 2011) (applying Cooke). Because Houston raises no federal procedural challenges, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.