Owen v. Vaughn

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: February 29, 2012
• Docket: 07-56747
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION FEB 29 2012

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

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

THOMAS OWEN, a.k.a. Thomas “S” No. 07-56747 Owen, D.C. No. CV-06-05630-CJC Petitioner - Appellant,

v. MEMORANDUM *

T. E. VAUGHN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Cormac J. Carney, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted February 21, 2012 **

Before: FERNANDEZ, McKEOWN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Thomas Owen 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). Owen 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. See Swarthout v. Cooke, 131 S. Ct. 859, 863

(2011) (per curiam). Because Owen raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

T.E. Vaughn’s motions to strike and for judicial notice, and Owen’s motion

for judicial notice, are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 07-56747