Case Name: Keith E. WIGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.F. SALAZAR, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-06-29
Citations: 441 F. App'x 423
Docket Number: No. 09-16091
Parties: Keith E. WIGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.F. SALAZAR, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before: CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and FISHER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 423–423

Head Matter:
Keith E. WIGGINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.F. SALAZAR, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-16091.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted June 15, 2011.
Filed June 29, 2011.
Keith E. Wiggins, Blythe, CA, pro se.
Kasey E. Jones, Office of the California Attorney, 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 Keith E. Wiggins 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.
Wiggins contends that the 2006 decision of the Board of Parole Hearings ("Board") denying his parole was not supported by "some evidence" of current dangerousness 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, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Wiggins raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
Wiggins's motions for judicial notice, received on November 23, 2009, and February 22, 2010, respectively, are deemed filed and are denied as moot. His suggestion for supplemental briefing on the impact of Cooke is also denied. See Pearson v. Muntz, 639 F.3d 1185, 1191 (9th Cir.2011).
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.