Case ID: f-appx_462/html/0726-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Bradford O. BRYANT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Randy GROUNDS, Warden, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 08-16754.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
    
    Filed Dec. 21, 2011.
    Bradford O. Bryant, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Mark Donnell Flanagan, Esquire, Senior Litigation, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Steven Grant Warner, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    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

California state prisoner Bradford O. Bryant 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.

Bryant contends that the Governor’s 2003 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. Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-,-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Styre v. Adams, 645 F.3d 1106, 1108 (9th Cir.2011) (acknowledging Cooke and holding that due process does not require Governor to hold second suitability hearing before reversing parole grant); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Bryant raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

Bryant’s motion for judicial notice is denied as moot.

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