Stanley Kelley v. Wong

446 F. App'x 897
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedAugust 11, 2011
Docket09-15939
StatusUnpublished

This text of 446 F. App'x 897 (Stanley Kelley v. Wong) 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
Stanley Kelley v. Wong, 446 F. App'x 897 (9th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Stanley Kelley appeals pro se 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.

Kelley contends that the his due process rights were violated because the Governor’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence.” This claim is foreclosed by Swarthout v. Cooke, - U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (holding that the only federal right at issue in the parole context is procedural).

To the extent that Kelley contends that the Governor violated his due process rights by failing to hold a hearing before reversing the grant of parole by the California Board of Prison Terms, that contention is foreclosed by Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106, 1108-09 (9th Cir.2011) (holding that Cooke implicitly rejects argument that the Governor was required to hold a hearing before reversing the Board’s decision granting parole). Kelly’s remaining claims lack merit.

AFFIRMED.

**

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

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

Related

Styre v. Adams
645 F.3d 1106 (Ninth Circuit, 2011)
Swarthout v. Cooke
178 L. Ed. 2d 732 (Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
446 F. App'x 897, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/stanley-kelley-v-wong-ca9-2011.