Case ID: f-appx_442/html/0322-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Wendell STUART, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tom L. CAREY, Warden; et al., Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 08-16127.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted July 12, 2011.
    
    Filed July 13, 2011.
    Ann Catherine Mcclintock, Esquire, Assistant Federal Public Defender, FPDCA — Federal Public Defender’s Office, Sacramento, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Stephen Peter Acquisto, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, AGCA — Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
    Before: SCHROEDER, ALARCÓN, and LEAVY, 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 Wendell Stuart appeals 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.

Stuart contends that the Board of Prison Term’s 2001 .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); Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1045-47 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Stuart raises no federal procedural challenges, we affirm.

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