Case Name: John C. MONTUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Teresa A. SCHWARTZ, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-26
Citations: 455 F. App'x 732
Docket Number: No. 08-16624
Parties: John C. MONTUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Teresa A. SCHWARTZ, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 455
Pages: 732–732

Head Matter:
John C. MONTUE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Teresa A. SCHWARTZ, Warden; Attorney General of the State of California, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 08-16624.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 25, 2011.
Filed Oct. 26, 2011.
John C. Montue, Corcoran, CA, pro se.
Pamela B. Hooley, Deputy Attorney General, AGCA-Office of the California Attorney General, Sacramento, CA, for Respondents-Appellees.
Before: TROTT, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, 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 C. Mon-tue 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.
Montue contends that the Board's 2002 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. See Swarthout v. Cooke, — U.S. -, -, 131 S.Ct. 859, 863, 178 L.Ed.2d 732 (2011) (per curiam). Because Montue raises no procedural challenges, we affirm.
Respondent Teresa A. Schwartz's motion to strike and request for judicial notice are denied as moot.
AFFIRMED.
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.