Case ID: f-appx_447/html/0832-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Christopher WORLINE, Petitioner-Appellee, v. J.F. SALAZAR, Respondent-Appellant. Christopher Worline, Petitioner-Appellee, v. J.F. Salazar, Respondent-Appellant.
    Nos. 09-56740, 09-56741.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted March 9, 2011.
    
    Filed Aug. 17, 2011.
    Ethan Douglas Dettmer, Esquire, Kareem Ghanem, Jason Bartholomew Stayers, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Petitioner-Appellee.
    Christopher Worline, pro se.
    Kim Aarons, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, CA, for Respondent-Appellant.
    Before: B. FLETCHER, REINHARDT, and WARDLAW, Circuit Judges.
    
      
       The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
   MEMORANDUM

Warden J.F. Salazar appeals the district court’s grant of Christopher Worline’s petitions for a writ of habeas corpus. Wor-line argued that there was not “some evidence” supporting the California Board of Parole Hearings’s 2004 and 2005 decisions denying him parole. In light of Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam), we hold that Worline’s federal right to due process was not violated. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s grant of his habeas petitions. We understand that the state will now grant Worline an out-of-custody parole hearing.

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