Opinion
No. 09-16671 D.C. No. 1:08-cv-00309-JTM-CAB
01-20-2012
GEORGE LEDESMA, Petitioner - Appellee, v. JOHN MARSHALL, Respondent - Appellant.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of California
Jeffrey T. Miller, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 5, 2011
The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
--------
San Francisco, California
Before: SCHROEDER, O'SCANNLAIN, and BERZON, Circuit Judges.
Warden John Marshall contends that the district court erred when it granted George Ledesma's petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d). We agree. When he was denied parole in November 2006, Ledesma received all process that was due to him. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011) (per curiam). Swarthout—decided while this appeal was pending—makes clear that federal habeas relief is not available based on the misapplication of California's "some evidence" rule of judicial review. See id. at 861-63.
We direct the district court to enter judgment for Marshall and to deny Ledesma's habeas petition.
REVERSED and REMANDED.