Summary
affirming denial of habeas petition in light of Cooke where petitioner claiming the Board's decision "was not supported by 'some evidence' and therefore violated his due process rights," and not raising any procedural challenges
Summary of this case from Edelen v. HartleyOpinion
No. 08-15840.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed.R.App.P. 34(a)(2).
Filed March 10, 2011.
Linda Buchalter, Santa Monica, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Kasey E. Jones, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, Oliver W. Wanger, Senior District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. 1:05-CV-01194-OWW-GSA.
Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, 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 Thomas Glenn Wyrick 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.
Wyrick contends that the Board's 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. See Swarthout v. Cooke, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011). Because Wyrick raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.