Case Name: Timothy BUSCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. A.P. KANE; et al., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-21
Citations: 462 F. App'x 726
Docket Number: No. 09-15225
Parties: Timothy BUSCH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. A.P. KANE; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 462
Pages: 726–727

Head Matter:
Timothy BUSCH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. A.P. KANE; et al., Respondents—Appellees.
No. 09-15225.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 19, 2011.
Filed Dec. 21, 2011.
Erik G. Babcock, Law Office of Erick G. Babcock, Oakland, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Timothy P. Busch, pro se.
Sara Romano, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Francisco, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE and McKEOWN, Circuit Judges.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Timothy Busch 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.
Busch contends that the Board's 2005 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 Busch 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.