Case ID: f-appx_430/html/0585-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Russell BOWDEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ken CLARK, Warden, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 08-17736.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    
      Submitted April 21, 2011.
    
    Filed April 28, 2011.
    Russell Bowden, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
    Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, 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 Russell Bow-den appeals pro se from the district court’s dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm.

After this court issued its January 10, 2011 order granting a certificate of appeal-ability on whether the district court properly summarily dismissed Bowden’s habeas petition and whether Bowden should have been given leave to amend, the Supreme Court decided Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Liberally construed, Bowden’s habeas petition essentially contended that the 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. See id. at 863. Because Bowden raises no 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.