Case Name: Richard A. SCHOENFELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-03
Citations: 435 F. App'x 694
Docket Number: No. 09-55025
Parties: Richard A. SCHOENFELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 435
Pages: 694–694

Head Matter:
Richard A. SCHOENFELD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John MARSHALL, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-55025.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted May 24, 2011.
Filed June 3, 2011.
Steve Defílippis, Picone & Defílippis, San Jose, CA, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Richard A. Schoenfeld, pro se.
Patricia Webber Heim, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before: PREGERSON, 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).

Opinion:
MEMORANDUM
California state prisoner Richard A. Schoenfeld 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.
Schoenfeld contends that the Board's 2003 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 ease correctly. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S.-, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Schoenfeld 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.