Case Name: Ron MORTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. James D. HARTLEY, Warden, Avenal State Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-24
Citations: 439 F. App'x 659
Docket Number: No. 08-15338
Parties: Ron MORTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. James D. HARTLEY, Warden, Avenal State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 659–660

Head Matter:
Ron MORTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. James D. HARTLEY, Warden, Avenal State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-15338.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 24, 2011.
Ron Morton, Jr., Avenal, CA, pro se.
Andrew R. Woodrow, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN and FISHER, 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 Ron Morton, Jr. 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.
Morton contends that the Board's 2004 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); see Roberts v. Hartley, 640 F.3d 1042, 1044-46 (9th Cir.2011) (applying Cooke). Because Morton raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
Petitioner's motion to stay pending the final outcome of Cooke is denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.