Case ID: f-appx_463/html/0678-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Lewis HAGGARD, Petitioner-Appellee, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellant.
    No. 10-16819.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 23, 2011.
    Steve Defilippis, Picone & Defilippis, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
    Steven Grant Warner, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Ben Curry appeals from the district court’s judgment granting California state prisoner Lewis Haggard’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we vacate and remand.

The district court granted relief in connection with the Board of Prison Terms’ 2004 decision to deny Haggard parole. Intervening Supreme Court authority explains that 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) (per curiam). Because Haggard raised no procedural challenges, we reverse the district court’s judgment.

We express no opinion on the merits of Haggard’s claims concerning his plea agreement. We leave to the district court resolution of those claims on remand.

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