Case ID: f-appx_284/html/0478-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Michael ISREAL, Petitioner— Appellant, v. J. SULLIVAN, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 07-16402.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted June 18, 2008.
    
    Filed July 2, 2008.
    Michael Isreal, Soledad, CA, pro se.
    Jennifer A. Neill, Esq., AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: REINHARDT, LEAVY, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

California state prisoner Michael Isreal appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition challenging the California Board of Prison Terms’ (the “Board”) 2001 decision finding him unsuitable for parole. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

As a threshold matter, we reject the state’s contention that California prisoners do not have a liberty interest in parole. See Sass v. Cal. Bd. of Prison Terms, 461 F.3d 1123, 1127-28 (9th Cir.2006). We also reject the state’s contention that this court lacks jurisdiction because Isreal never received a certificate of appealability. See Rosas v. Nielsen, 428 F.3d 1229, 1231-32 (9th Cir.2005) (per curiam).

Isreal contends that the Board’s decision violated his due process rights. We conclude that some evidence supports the Board’s decision to deny parole. See Superintendent v. Hill, 472 U.S. 445, 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985); Irons v. Carey, 505 F.3d 846, 851-52 (9th Cir.2007). Accordingly, Isreal has failed to demonstrate that the state court’s decision denying his claims “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding,” or “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law.” See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hill, 472 U.S. at 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768. We also conclude that the district court properly rejected Isreal’s remaining due process contention.

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