Case ID: f-appx_430/html/0612-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Kenneth Ray HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ben CURRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 10-16017.
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted April 20, 2011.
    
    Filed May 3, 2011.
    Elizabeth Garfinkle, Law Office of Elizabeth Garfinkle, for Petitioner-Appellant.
    Kenneth Ray Harris, Oakland, CA, pro se.
    Stacey D. Sehesser, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Steven Grant Warner, Deputy Attorney General, Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
    Before: RYMER, 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 Kenneth Ray Harris 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.

Harris contends that the Board’s 2006 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 Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 862-63, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011); Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011). Because Harris raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.

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