Claude Withers v. Claude Finn

Opinion

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 03 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLAUDE WITHERS, No. 08-17781

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 2:05-cv-01485-FCD-

CMK

v.

CLAUDE FINN, Warden, MEMORANDUM * Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Frank C. Damrell, Senior District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2011 ** Before: RYMER, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Claude Withers 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.

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

Withers contends that the Board of Prison Term’s 2003 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, 131 S. Ct. 859, 862-63 (2011); Pearson v. Muntz, No. 08-55728, 2011 WL 1238007(9th Cir. Apr. 5, 2011). Because Withers raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

AFFIRMED.