John Placencia v. Randy Grounds

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedApril 29, 2011
Docket08-15676
StatusUnpublished

This text of John Placencia v. Randy Grounds (John Placencia v. Randy Grounds) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
John Placencia v. Randy Grounds, (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION APR 29 2011

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JOHN PLACENCIA, No. 08-15676

Petitioner - Appellant, D.C. No. 06-CV-02516-JF

v. MEMORANDUM * RANDY GROUNDS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Jeremy D. Fogel, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 20, 2011 **

Before: RYMER, THOMAS and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner John Plasencia 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). Plasencia contends that the Board of Prison Term’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, 131 S. Ct. 859,

862-63 (2011); Pearson v. Muntz, No. 08-55728, 2011 WL 1238007(9th Cir. Apr.

5, 2011). Because Plasencia raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.1

AFFIRMED.

1 We deny Plasencia’s request for supplemental briefing.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Pearson v. Muntz
639 F.3d 1185 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Swarthout v. Cooke
178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
John Placencia v. Randy Grounds, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/john-placencia-v-randy-grounds-ca9-2011.