Case ID: f-appx_396/html/0378-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rodney L. SCOTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Arnold SCHWARZENEGGER, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 07-55029.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted Sept. 13, 2010.
    
    Filed Sept. 21, 2010.
    Rodney Scott, San Diego, CA, pro se.
    Beneth A. Browne, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Los Angeles, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: SILVERMAN, CALLAHAN, and N.R. SMITH, 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 Rodney Scott appeals pro se 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.

Scott contends that the Board of Prison Terms’ 2001 decision to deny him parole was not supported by “some evidence” of his future dangerousness and therefore violated his due process rights. As some evidence does support the Board’s decision, his contention is not availing. See also Hayward v. Marshall, 603 F.3d 546, 562 (9th Cir.2010).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.
     
      
      . We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issue of whether the 2001 decision of the California Board of Prison Terms to deny parole violated due process.