Case ID: f-appx_420/html/0710-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Francisco IBARRA, Petitioner-Appellant, v. D.K. SISTO, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-17044.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 8, 2011.
    
    Filed March 10, 2011.
    Francisco Ibarra, Vacaville, CA, pro se.
    Kasey E. Jones, Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: FARRIS, LEAVY, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Francisco Ibarra 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.

Ibarra contends that the Board’s 2007 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 Ibarra raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

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