Case ID: f-appx_435/html/0673-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Walter McCOTTRELL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Robert L. AYERS, Jr., Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 08-15060.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted May 24, 2011.
    
    Filed June 3, 2011.
    Silky Sahnan, Law Offices of Johnny L. Griffin, III, Johnny L. Griffin, III, Esq., Sacramento, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Amber Nicole Wipfler, Esq., Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee.
    Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, 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 Walter McCottrell 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.

McCottrell contends that his due process rights were violated by the Board’s 2004 decision finding him unsuitable for parole, because the decision 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 ease correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because McCottrell raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

Further, because McCottrell has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, we decline to certify his remaining claims. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c).

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