Case Name: John GZIKOWSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Debra DEXTER, Warden, 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 675
Docket Number: No. 09-56492
Parties: John GZIKOWSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Debra DEXTER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 439
Pages: 675–676

Head Matter:
John GZIKOWSKI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Debra DEXTER, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-56492.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 24, 2011.
John Gzikowski, Blythe, CA, pro se.
Kim Aarons, Esquire, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, San Diego, 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 John Gzikowski appeals pro se 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.
Gzikowski contends that the Board's 2007 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 Gzikowski 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.